# Planet Fitness Transgender Locker Room Controversy



## Mike (Mar 11, 2015)

I'm not usually one to get involved in any gender related issues, but this a very interesting case. At a Planet Fitness in Michigan, a woman had her membership revoked for reporting a complaint of what she thought to be a man (Or so she claimed at least in her initial testimony) in the women's locker room. Upon confronting the staff, she was informed the member she was reporting for being in the women's locker room was actually listed/identified as transgender and had every right to be there. Not sure of the level of complaining this woman took it to, but ultimately due to Planet Fitness' No-judgment policy, the woman was banned from the gym.

A Woman Complained To Planet Fitness About A Transgender Member. This Is How They Responded.

Seems like this could open up a can of worms.

South Park called it.


----------



## asher (Mar 11, 2015)

Planet Fitness cancels woman's membership after her complaints of transgender woman in locker room | MLive.com

Slightly more details:



> MIDLAND, MI -- 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.
> 
> Yvette Cormier said the incident occurred Saturday, Feb. 28, when she entered the women's locker room at the Planet Fitness location at 701 Joe Mann Boulevard in Midland.
> 
> ...


----------



## TedEH (Mar 11, 2015)

Maybe this comment belongs in the "unpopular opinions" thread, but I can't fault anyone for taking either side in that argument. Being entirely open to every self-reported gender identity isn't entirely compatible with having gender-segregated locker rooms. It surprises me that it took so long for this to become a controversy.


----------



## metaldoggie (Mar 11, 2015)

Coed locker rooms solve the problem.

If there are doors on changing and toilet stalls, what is the big deal?


----------



## Mike (Mar 11, 2015)

asher said:


> members and guests may use all gym facilities based on their sincere self-reported gender identity.



There's where I think a lot of arguing is going to stem from. How do you truly gauge "sincere"? What's to stop someone who just wants to sneak a peek from dawning a wig and some lipstick, signing up for a membership and identifying as a trans woman, and going right on into the women's locker room?

Not saying that's at all what happened in this case, but you can't tell me that somewhere in this lovely world, some perv won't try to get away with that because of the defense of such policies protecting them from being questioned or scrutinized.


----------



## Mike (Mar 11, 2015)

metaldoggie said:


> Coed locker rooms solve the problem.
> 
> If there are doors on changing and toilet stalls, what is the big deal?



Showers


----------



## asher (Mar 11, 2015)

She's already complaining about one physically male cohabitating the space, imagine the uproar if everyone had to do that.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 11, 2015)

Mike said:


> How do you truly gauge "sincere"?



To me, that part's a non-issue. Someone can 100% sincerely believe something but still be wrong (or at least contrary to another person's opinion). It's my (again, potentially very unpopular) opinion that a trans-woman is not a woman. Those are two distinct and different things in my mind, but I'm not going to debate that, since it's a whole can of worms on it's own. But more to the point, I see more of an issue stemming from the same terminology being used to describe two different things. I mean, when someone says "this is the mens room", do they mean "this is the room for people who identify as male", or do they mean "this is the room for those who are biologically male"? It raises the question of why the rooms are segregated in the first place, and whether either of those two definitions still supports that separation.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 11, 2015)

Mike said:


> There's where I think a lot of arguing is going to stem from. How do you truly gauge "sincere"? What's to stop someone who just wants to sneak a peek from dawning a wig and some lipstick, signing up for a membership and identifying as a trans woman, and going right on into the women's locker room?



I think that may be a moot argument. Transgender people exist, lesbians exist, and creepy people exist. A person could be described by each of those adjectives completely independent of one another. That is to say, there exist some creepy people who are neither transgender nor lesbian, who could make others feel uncomfortable in the lockerroom. So I'm not sure where you can take that argument.

Having private showers is probably the way most gyms are going to go. A gym can policy all over the place if it wants, but people who feel offended for whatever reason, will just go somewhere else with their business, whether their reasons for being offended are ridiculous or not.

That's not to say that having private showers in a gym makes it immune to creeps.

Please not that my comments about creeps are all rhetorical. In no way do I mean to imply that there is any correlation between creeps and alternative lifestyles.


----------



## Mike (Mar 11, 2015)

Creeps exist in all forms regardless of their sexual preference or their gender identity. There's gay, lesbian, bi, straight, and trans-male/female pervs out there. I'm sorry but I do not have enough faith in humanity to exempt anyone from the possibility of perverted intentions regardless of how they choose to identify or what gender they're attracted to. 

All I'm saying is you can't really know a persons intentions until you actually catch them in the act of conducting inappropriate sexual behavior in a situation that arises from them being in the wrong?(or correct? I don't even know anymore) locker room.

Again it's really a strange situation that doesn't seem to have a correct answer for dealing with it. Segregation is wrong, you can make a trans-only room. That'll start a gender equality riot. You can't tell them they're not allowed in a certain gender specific room because their junk doesn't match the sign on the door. That's not progressive.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 11, 2015)

I support keeping things traditional. P-to the right V-to the left
Got both? well take your pick then 
Only problem is; who's gonna check it?


----------



## Hollowway (Mar 11, 2015)

Mike said:


> There's where I think a lot of arguing is going to stem from. How do you truly gauge "sincere"? What's to stop someone who just wants to sneak a peek from dawning a wig and some lipstick, signing up for a membership and identifying as a trans woman, and going right on into the women's locker room?
> 
> Not saying that's at all what happened in this case, but you can't tell me that somewhere in this lovely world, some perv won't try to get away with that because of the defense of such policies protecting them from being questioned or scrutinized.



Have you ever BEEN in a gym locker room? I'd be surprised if anyone would want to look at saggy boobs or back hair.  

But I would politely inform this woman that there are a bunch of gay men and women who use locker rooms. This lady just needs to calm down. 

It kind of reminds me of that Christian Slater line from Heathers, where the bully says, "Hey, this school doesn't let gays in here!" And he says, "Rhey seem to have an open door policy on assholes though, don't they?"


----------



## Explorer (Mar 11, 2015)

Mike said:


> There's where I think a lot of arguing is going to stem from. How do you truly gauge "sincere"? What's to stop someone who just wants to sneak a peek from dawning a wig and some lipstick, signing up for a membership and identifying as a trans woman, and going right on into the women's locker room?
> 
> Not saying that's at all what happened in this case, but you can't tell me that somewhere in this lovely world, some perv won't try to get away with that because of the defense of such policies protecting them from being questioned or scrutinized.



I'm going to restate the argument I think you're making. You can correct me if I'm wrong.

If one person at Planet Fitness makes unwanted advances on another person, or is being overtly sexual in checking them out, there are no rules in place against such behavior.

Did I get that right? 

Given the rules revealed so far, even just by the woman who was talking crap about another member, it's unlikely that there are rules protecting against one form of harassment but not another. 

I'd welcome evidence to the contrary, though. Why do you think they would only limit rules preventing harassment to issues of gender identity?

In this case though, this person admitted that talking smack about another member in a way which violated the rules. The person admitted violating the rules, and also admitted telling Planet Fitness that the rule violations were going to continue.

So... what do you think Planet Fitness will do if someone is found to be violating the rules against forms of harassment?

And, what do you think Planet Fitness will do if that person says such rule violations will continue?

Funniest of all... who doesn't find it hilarious that the person who admits violating the anti-harassment rules, and states that such violations will continue, feels like he or she is being punished for violating those rules, as if enforcing the rules is a complete surprise to them?

Insight is definitely something which you can't buy. The lack of it on the part of the clueless is just part of the comedy. 

----

Asher's quote includes the fact that one can choose to use a private changing room, and that the toilet stalls have doors. It's not clear to me that the rule violator was refused the private room option, and I doubt such a refusal happened on the part of the club. I guess I see this as complaining that the sexual equivalent of "Whites only" signs aren't being posted. 



TRENCHLORD said:


> Only problem is; who's gonna check it?



At my old norther Shaolin school, there was one guy who would strip down entirely after sessions while changing. I wasn't really focused on it, since I was changing too, but I still laugh when I remember R yelling, "H! Please!"

And H yelling back at R, "Why you lookin'?!"

----

In some touring situations, you are in extremely close quarters. The rule we always lived by is, respect is privacy. When you're all in a rush and don't have money for different rooms, sometimes there is one person on the pot, one brushing teeth and one grabbing a quick shower. It isn't the end of the world. 

And if you have more cash, as either a band or when you choose a gym, you can find facilities which better suit your tastes, or even pay for a private trainer at home.


----------



## Mike (Mar 11, 2015)

Yeah you got the gist of it. I can only hope that if someone was actually being harassed in that type of situation, Planet Fitness would acknowledge it happening and take the proper measures to make sure it's dealt with (i.e. involving law authorities and banning the perpetrator). That goes for any type of harassment be it any of the possible combinations of the 3 (4?) gender categories of people that seem to exist in this time period. Like I've pointed out, I don't really have all of the answers for what is right and wrong with these types of scenarios and how to actually deal with it in a manor that makes everyone happy and doesn't make people feel uncomfortable (I think that's impossible).


----------



## flint757 (Mar 11, 2015)

People are just going to have to stop being so squirmish about it. Currently you could be sharing the stall with a gay person. Does that cross your mind when in the bathroom? Probably not because the bathroom is simply a place to empty ones bowels. Kind of a gross place to choose to hit on someone. If a dude were taking a peek at me while I was using the bathroom I'd just report them to management and call it a day or maybe do nothing. It doesn't happen though. I'd be willing to bet that peoples 'fears' are unsubstantiated and will continue to be if the laws/rules were to change in the long run.

I do find it funny to posture a point about trans people based on fears about straight people though. In any case, there are far easier ways to see someone naked than to dress drag and go to the gym.


----------



## Eliguy666 (Mar 13, 2015)

TedEH said:


> It's my (again, potentially very unpopular) opinion that a trans-woman is not a woman.



Can we get TacoTikah in here for a smackdown?
Anyways, it doesn't really matter what qualifications you put on people's gender, because if you disagree with them you're just kinda wrong. It's not like we take fundies seriously when they say that Catholics aren't Christian, or take people seriously when they say metal isn't music.
You might as well say "kiwis aren't birds, they don't have wings!". It might make sense on the surface, but everyone who knows **** on the topic will tear that opinion down.


----------



## Eliguy666 (Mar 13, 2015)

Mike said:


> That goes for any type of harassment be it any of the possible combinations of the 3 (4?) gender categories of people that seem to exist in this time period.



Oh god, you have NO idea. There are so many gender identities that plenty of people invent names for their own. Here's a pretty abridged list.
Gender Queeries
But yeah, I definitely agree with you that transexuality doesn't really complicate harassment issues at all.


----------



## SD83 (Mar 14, 2015)

TedEH said:


> I mean, when someone says "this is the mens room", do they mean "this is the room for people who identify as male", or do they mean "this is the room for those who are biologically male"?



To jump onto the "unpopular opinion" waggon: I always thought it was the later and that no one could ever be confused about that. If you feel like a woman or a man or whatever, why would that even matter to anyone but yourself? If we continue on this road, there are two ways, we either get different rooms for every "gender" someone might come up with (am I the only one whom this reminds of pointless genre debates? "Oh, I'm totally a post-male trans-nihilistic woman. With a touch of capitalist bitch." Who cares, and why should anyone?) or rooms for... well, "humans". Although some people might come up with "not feeling like a human but...".


----------



## Explorer (Mar 14, 2015)

Unrelated note: GoldDragon brought the banhammer down on himself when he started a topic which seemed to derived its humor from "transgender = opportunity for lulz." 

Related note: I worked for a retail location which i s located near a huge yearly event. The business would graciously let people use the bathrooms, because portajohns are awful, and I regularly volunteered to help manage the lines. 

We had numerous customers who identified with a sex differing from their birth sex. If someone was in line for the men's room, I would ask if they preferred a stall, and if they did, I'd wave them in when one became available. 

Dignity. Treating someone with dignity doesn't seem so problematic to me. It's actually pretty effortless, and I think you'd have to be a douchebag supreme to not do so. 

If you're in my place of business, and making someone else's sexuality or race *your* concern, you can GTFO. 

If someone reasonably believes that someone is just perving on them, that perving is also not acceptable. 

Seems simple to me, which is why it's so surprising to me that others have to make a big deal of someone else's sexuality. Unless you're looking to bang someone, why is your mind in their pants?

Oh, wait... maybe *that's* it....


----------



## eggzoomin (Mar 14, 2015)

Explorer said:


> Dignity. Treating someone with dignity doesn't seem so problematic to me. It's actually pretty effortless, and I think you'd have to be a douchebag supreme to not do so.



Nailed it. In my mind this boils down to "Don't be a dick." Possession of one is neither here nor there.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Mar 14, 2015)

SD83 said:


> To jump onto the "unpopular opinion" waggon: I always thought it was the later and that no one could ever be confused about that. If you feel like a woman or a man or whatever, why would that even matter to anyone but yourself? If we continue on this road, there are two ways, we either get different rooms for every "gender" someone might come up with (am I the only one whom this reminds of pointless genre debates? "Oh, I'm totally a post-male trans-nihilistic woman. With a touch of capitalist bitch." Who cares, and why should anyone?) or rooms for... well, "humans". Although some people might come up with "not feeling like a human but...".


It should matter to others too because if you're afab but identify as male and everyone around you still treats you as a woman, that sort of shits on the idea of identifying as a certain gender.


----------



## SD83 (Mar 14, 2015)

UnderTheSign said:


> It should matter to others too because if you're afab but identify as male and everyone around you still treats you as a woman, that sort of shits on the idea of identifying as a certain gender.



Again, to be honest I don't see why I should treat someone as male or female, just as I don't see why I should treat someone as German or British, or black or white. If one acts like a cliché woman from the 50s, I think I should respect that and treat the person as such, dick or none. If one acts like Mr.Testosterone himself, that might probably make that person an asshole, but again, does it matter if that person got a dick? 
I stand with my initial argument, the only way to solve that issue would be to either make room restrictions based on what genitalia the person have or none at all. Or both, having three kinds of rooms.


----------



## Eliguy666 (Mar 14, 2015)

See, your intentions are noble, but your approach to things is pretty harmful to people. While you're definitely treating people equally, at the same time you're not respecting people's race/gender/background. Those things are meaningful to the people carrying them.


----------



## SD83 (Mar 14, 2015)

Eliguy666 said:


> Those things are meaningful to the people carrying them.



I don't know if I get your point, so... sorry if I misunderstood anything, but wouldn't that, again, totally depend on the person? I heard it over and over again from people I know that they are sick and tired of being treated differently because they are women, or Arab, or Russian or gay. Is it disrespectful not to care about race, gender, origin? Is that insulting to those who do? And isn't it insulting to those who don't, if you do?


----------



## Eliguy666 (Mar 14, 2015)

What you need to do is ask people politely, or, if you'd rather not, you can just oblige them if they ask you to.

Think of it kind of like this. You're talking to a transgender/nonbinary/whatever person at work.
"That's very kind of you sir."
"Please call me madam."
And then you know what pronouns to use/what set of norms to treat them with.


----------



## SD83 (Mar 14, 2015)

I would say that's just "good manners", isn't it? The world would be a lot easier if everyone had them.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Mar 14, 2015)

SD83 said:


> I don't know if I get your point, so... sorry if I misunderstood anything, but wouldn't that, again, totally depend on the person? I heard it over and over again from people I know that they are sick and tired of being treated differently because they are women, or Arab, or Russian or gay. Is it disrespectful not to care about race, gender, origin? Is that insulting to those who do? And isn't it insulting to those who don't, if you do?



There's a difference between treating someone differently and acknowledging origin, gender etc. A good example of treating a trans person fair is using correct pronouns, like I said in my previous post. 

You right now seem to be "I don't care who you are/what your background is". I've had this conversation with a good trans friend before and he'd rather have you say "I acknowledge your background and support/respect you in that". See the difference? One is blunt, blind and ignores the fact people are different. The other comes across way more accepting and makes people more likely to be open about their identity.

Edit:whoops my phone types slow as hell, Eli replied before I did


----------



## SD83 (Mar 14, 2015)

I get your point, and I guess you're right. As I said, I try to judge people by the way they act (treating everyone equally would be the most unfair thing ever, after all), and I hope most of the time I get that "respect" thing right. Maybe I'm weird, but I don't think "I don't care about your [whatever]" and "I respect your [whatever]" are mutually exclusive.


----------



## tedtan (Mar 14, 2015)

Eliguy666 said:


> What you need to do



I don't mean to be an ass, but actually, all I NEED is:


Oxygen
Water
Food
Shelter/clothing to protect from the elements
Beyond that, when someone deigns to tell me that I "NEED to do" something, what it actually amounts to is that person wanting special treatment, without having the basic the respect to ask for it properly.


----------



## eggzoomin (Mar 14, 2015)

Depends on your definition of "need." If you're strictly defining "need" in terms of what is required for you to see another few dawns, then all I need is what you've quoted - and a couple of those could be substituted for my Leatherman Charge. 

If, on the other hand, you're expanding "need" to include "getting along in life with a minimum of hassle/friction given the complex nature of social interactions in the society we all cohabit," then Eliguy666 has a point. No point in picking fights or offending people if you don't have to. I'm not afraid of conflict, but if it can be avoided without causing me undue trouble, I'm happy with that - minimum of effort on my part, y'know? There's also a courtesy aspect about treating people with the respect for which I would also hope. If we're all polite, we'll all get along and then we can focus on the job in hand, whether it's something specific at work or just general interaction around being good humans.


----------



## tedtan (Mar 14, 2015)

^

That's what I'm getting at.

If you want something from someone else, it pays to think about what you want and ask for it as directly as possible.

If you don't, you may well piss off the very people you are asking to help you without realizing it, and end up with nothing in return (or even worse, enemies).


----------



## Eliguy666 (Mar 14, 2015)

tedtan said:


> what it actually amounts to is that person wanting special treatment, without having the basic the respect to ask for it properly.





> What you need to do is ask people politely, or, if you'd rather not, you can just oblige them if they ask you to.





As to the "Need to do" part, SD was asking me what to do in order to be respectful to people. I said what needs to be done in order to be respectful to people. I don't remember the conversation being about the prerequisites for animal life, but I may have missed some subtext.

As to SD, you're absolutely right about it being a manners issue, but some people don't have them to people who are LGBTQ+, different races, different religions, different genders, and all, so it's useful info to put out there as an expectation.


----------



## tedtan (Mar 16, 2015)

Eliguy666 said:


> As to the "Need to do" part, SD was asking me what to do in order to be respectful to people. I said what needs to be done in order to be respectful to people. I don't remember the conversation being about the prerequisites for animal life, but I may have missed some subtext.



Like I said, I wasn't intending to come across as an ass, just pointing out the difference between your wanting someone to do something and them needing to do it. The reason I made the distinction is that telling someone that they need to do something is a manipulative turn of phrase designed to get unintelligent, weak minded, and/or subservient people to do something that they do not particularly care to do. I'm sure you didn't intend it that way, so I am trying to point out to you that it can very easily be taken that way whether you intend it to be or not.

So the point is that if you are asking someone to respect you and your wishes, it behooves you to show them some respect, too, no?


----------



## TedEH (Mar 16, 2015)

Eliguy666 said:


> because if you disagree with them you're just kinda wrong.



I'm not wrong. Nor am I against trans people in any way. But I refuse to deny that there's a distinction between someone who biologically/physically matches what they identify as, and someone who doesn't. I don't come here to argue, so that's the last I'm going to say on that matter. If you disagree with me, then that's fine.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 16, 2015)

Before any comes right out and says it...

Any comparisons between gender discrimination and race discrimination are really a little skewed.

Whether a person is white, black, brown, or purple, it really makes no difference unless you are giving a phsical description.

Male and female are generally distinct in other ways. For example, imagine a coed boxing league. Along these lines, there was controversey in Tennis over Renee Richards. Also, in seeking a relationship with another person, most people prefer a certain gender. To prefer a certain race is not the same thing.

Using the men's room or ladies' room is not parallel to having "whites only" rooms or any such medieval nonsense.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 16, 2015)

As a funny example of changing norms, and how male-heavy some professions like architectural design can be...

How long did it take before new buildings which included baby changing stations in the bathrooms started putting them in the men's rooms as well?


----------



## CrazyDean (Mar 17, 2015)

So the trans person has been named, it's Carlotta Sklodowska. After a quick google image search, I think it's clear as to why the woman was so uncomfortable with this person in the locker room. This person is a creep, regardless of which gender she identifies with. I certainly wouldn't want my teenage daughter in the same locker room as her.


----------



## pushpull7 (Mar 17, 2015)

TedEH said:


> It's my (again, potentially very unpopular) opinion that a trans-woman is not a woman.



I agree. There is nothing insensitive/judgmental or phobic about it. If he's got a shnoz, then HE belongs in the mens locker room.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Mar 18, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> I agree. There is nothing insensitive/judgmental or phobic about it. If he's got a shnoz, then HE belongs in the mens locker room.


So you'd send "him" to the mens locker room?






If you're afraid women will get harassed by trans women in the ladies room, the hell do you think happens to trans women in the mens room?


----------



## vilk (Mar 18, 2015)

So, I'm not the most frequent lockerroom goer, but I have been in one before, and I don't entirely understand how it's different from the rest of public places where harassment isn't tolerated. Why would an opposite sex being in "the lockerroom" make it different than some other room.

Even if we are talking about everyone getting nude and bathing together, does that make someone more likely to approach a person and start doing whatever kind of harassment these people seem to fear (specifically what was it again?)? I can tell a chick is fine whether or not she has her clothes on--I'm not somehow gonna magically lose all inhibition and start terrorizing her. If anything the awkwardness of nudity would make harassment less likely to occur in the locker room, as opposed to a bar or a mall or something.


----------



## pushpull7 (Mar 18, 2015)

I understand but it's just really weird to have a guy with the shnoz in a womens dressing room.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 18, 2015)

vilk said:


> Even if we are talking about everyone getting nude and bathing together, does that make someone more likely to approach a person and start doing whatever kind of harassment these people seem to fear (specifically what was it again?)?



In an ideal world, no. But we don't live in an ideal world. Bathrooms / lockerrooms / changerooms are smaller, more secluded places, and places where people's expectations are different, so yes, those things influence people's behavior.


----------



## asher (Mar 18, 2015)

So if totally cis white dude me lost every bit of my junk in an accident or something (or some drunken pain olympics, this is already a strange hypothetical so why not) can I then use the ladies' room?


----------



## vilk (Mar 18, 2015)

TedEH said:


> In an ideal world, no. But we don't live in an ideal world. Bathrooms / lockerrooms / changerooms are smaller, more secluded places, and places where people's expectations are different, so yes, those things influence people's behavior.



That's the exact point of my post. They're smaller... than what, the gym? Target is smaller than Solider Field so should we maybe segregate people there too? I suppose a _stall_ is secluded, and as any secluded area you could possibly get attacked because the public eye isn't protecting you, but obviously sneaking into someone's toilet is a personal affront that could happen regardless of sex.

_How_ does it influence people's


> behavior


 ? And how do you back that up?


and just fyi baths and toilets were public forums for like most of human history


----------



## bostjan (Mar 18, 2015)

asher said:


> So if totally cis white dude me lost every bit of my junk in an accident or something (or some drunken pain olympics, this is already a strange hypothetical so why not) can I then use the ladies' room?



According to Planet Fitness, no. You already identified yourself as "dude."

I'm not how other metrics would work in this situation unless they are specified. I already proposed private rooms would make more sense, so, in my judgement, it's irrelevant.

As far as would I suddenly want to date you if you didn't have the anatomy. No. I like you, just not in that way.


----------



## asher (Mar 18, 2015)

bostjan said:


> According to Planet Fitness, no. You already identified yourself as "dude."
> 
> I'm not how other metrics would work in this situation unless they are specified. I already proposed private rooms would make more sense, so, in my judgement, it's irrelevant.
> 
> As far as would I suddenly want to date you if you didn't have the anatomy. No. I like you, just not in that way.





My bad, shoulda been more clear: that comment was meant to be addressed specifically to ted and push.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 18, 2015)

vilk said:


> _How_ does it influence people's behavior?



I'm no psychologist or something like that, but do I really have to explain how people have different expectations regarding privacy, etiquette, etc when you're in a bathroom? Is it that difficult to differentiate between why you would call a bathroom "secluded" compared to a whole store?

When a person goes into a small room to change or something like that, it leaves them feeling vulnerable, whether they realistically are or not.


----------



## vilk (Mar 18, 2015)

I'm saying yeah spell it out for me. Why do you believe that men and women can't coexist in a bathroom. With reasons, not just "Uh I dunno it just seems that way!" Because as I mentioned before people have been just fine with unisex bathrooms in classic Rome. In pre-western Japan women weren't to even show men their face without makeup but could flaunt their tits in a hot spring.


I'm not a psychologist either, so why don't we find an actual source as to why co-ed locker rooms would disturb civil society. I'd fathom that there are many places in the world that currently DO function on this system just fine.

I get what you're saying, that whether or not its reasonable people are going to feel a certain way. But that's only because they believe their emotions are fortified with some kind truth, which they aren't, and probably if disillusioned eventually everyone would get over it.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 18, 2015)

vilk said:


> Why do you believe that men and women can't coexist in a bathroom.



But that's not at all what I said at all. I said that being in a bathroom makes people feel vulnerable- which makes harassment more likely to happen. That's all I said.


----------



## vilk (Mar 18, 2015)

Yeah I realized that and then fixed up my thing too lol

Woah woah hold up. Feeling vulnerable does not "make harassment more likely to happen". Why would you say that?


----------



## McKay (Mar 18, 2015)

bostjan said:


> Whether a person is white, black, brown, or purple, it really makes no difference unless you are giving a phsical description.



Objectively false but whatever. I wish we'd grow up as a culture and stop spreading convenient lies, we can reduce bigotry without resorting to it.


----------



## vilk (Mar 18, 2015)

Dude that's so vague. Do you actually have a specific idea in your head with that or you just wanted to post something super vague and deep sounding


----------



## UnderTheSign (Mar 18, 2015)

TedEH said:


> But that's not at all what I said at all. I said that being in a bathroom makes people feel vulnerable- which makes harassment more likely to happen. That's all I said.


So how would you deal with someone like Laverne Cox like I mentioned in my post earlier?


----------



## asher (Mar 18, 2015)

vilk said:


> Yeah I realized that and then fixed up my thing too lol
> 
> Woah woah hold up. Feeling vulnerable does not "make harassment more likely to happen". Why would you say that?



Phermones, duh.

Fvcking bears man, they can smell the menstruation fear.


----------



## McKay (Mar 18, 2015)

vilk said:


> Dude that's so vague. Do you actually have a specific idea in your head with that or you just wanted to post something super vague and deep sounding



Seemed pretty straightforward to me. It's frustrating when people spread the idea that there are no biological differences between different human groups, or that if there are it isn't useful to explore them. Medically, it's actually dangerous not to. I'm being punctilious, I know but it's an unnecessary misconception that gets put around with the best intentions.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 19, 2015)

vilk said:


> Why would you say that?



Because you said the opposite and I disagree? Sometimes I think you just like to argue. 

The point is, whether there's scientific legitimacy to it or not, at least some people (including myself, but not Vilk apparently), see a bathroom as a place where you're more vulnerable, and it therefor wouldn't surprise me that people either get more harassed in that location, or get more defensive about the possibility of being harassed. It's just an opinion, and not that difficult a concept.


----------



## TedEH (Mar 19, 2015)

UnderTheSign said:


> So how would you deal with someone like Laverne Cox like I mentioned in my post earlier?



I wouldn't deal with it. I would either leave it alone because I don't feel like I'm at any personal risk regardless of how I otherwise feel about the situation, or find another place on my own time to avoid confrontation if it really bothered me that much. I mean, it's not like there's no imaginable reason why someone would be in the "wrong" bathroom.


----------



## vilk (Mar 19, 2015)

McKay said:


> Seemed pretty straightforward to me. It's frustrating when people spread the idea that there are no biological differences between different human groups, or that if there are it isn't useful to explore them. Medically, it's actually dangerous not to. I'm being punctilious, I know but it's an unnecessary misconception that gets put around with the best intentions.



He said physical description. I don't think it's limited to skin tone. Everyone is aware that ethnicity dictates biological differences. People often talk about colors when talking about ethnicity, but I'm pretty sure it's just a placement marker that would encompass everything from eye shape to hair thickness to genital size. 

YOU made it seem like ethnicity dictates something _beyond_ physical description when you called it a lie!


@teddy you raise a good point that people would perceive themselves as being harassed more easily. I thought you were saying that people would up and start harassing eachother because of pheromones or something (which I'm callin bull), but people just being oversensitive and believing themselves to be victims of harassment even when none has taken place does seem like something that would definitely happen... but then again that shit already does happen plenty.


----------



## McKay (Mar 19, 2015)

> He said physical description. I don't think it's limited to skin tone. Everyone is aware that ethnicity dictates biological differences. People often talk about colors when talking about ethnicity, but I'm pretty sure it's just a placement marker that would encompass everything from eye shape to hair thickness to genital size.
> 
> YOU made it seem like ethnicity dictates something _beyond_ physical description when you called it a lie!


I suppose this really comes down to what was meant by _physical description_. The colloquial usage denotes visible attributes (i.e. 'skin deep') which is what the post in context seems to imply. If we go with that understanding of the term, it would be accurate to say that there are biological differences "beyond physical description", which is what I was referring to in my initial post. For clarity's sake, I should have qualified "biological differences" in my second post with "non-visible" but I figured it was implied given the previous posts.

My main point was that recognising the differences between human populations (it should be stressed that every individual's genome is different and generalisations have exceptions by definition) isn't mutually exclusive with fighting racism and discrimination. Anyway this is way off topic so we should take this discussion elsewhere.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 20, 2015)

For all that "physical description" is now being raised, the case being discussed doesn't center on that at all. 

Planet Fitness has their "no judgment" anti-harassment policy. This woman violated it. She can choose another gym which allows her to talk chit about another member. 

I love the stories about those states which want to allow businesses to discriminate because of the owners' religious beliefs, and the simultaneous objections to businesses who post that they will take anyone's money. "Their saying they don't discriminate makes us look douchey! Waaah!" *laugh*

Complaining that someone won't let you talk chit about someone is hilarious. Go to a different private business where you doing so is protected.


----------



## McKay (Mar 20, 2015)

Explorer said:


> For all that "physical description" is now being raised, the case being discussed doesn't center on that at all.
> 
> Planet Fitness has their "no judgment" anti-harassment policy. This woman violated it. She can choose another gym which allows her to talk chit about another member.
> 
> ...



Pretty much this.


----------

