“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”
On Saturday, Feb. 28 Yvette Cormier entered her Midland, Michigan Planet Fitness gym to work out. To her surprise, she found a man just inside the locker room entrance. She reported the incident to the front desk and was told that the man “identifies” as a woman and that Planet Fitness gyms—including their locker rooms—are “no judgment zones.” It should be noted that girls as young as 13 can join Planet Fitness and enjoy their “no judgment zones.”
When working out the next week, Cormier warned other women that a man is permitted to use the women’s locker room. For that grave cultural sin, the gym has revoked her membership, asserting that Cormier had violated their “no judgment” policy. Oh, the ironies…
Before expelling her from the club for being “inappropriate and disruptive,” the Planet Fitness corporate office asked Ms. Cormier if she would stop telling other women about the man in the locker room. She properly said “no,” she would not stop. They then judged her behavior to be unacceptable and canceled her membership, issuing this absurdist public statement:
Trending: Will Oregon Voters Defund Abortions?
Planet Fitness is committed to creating a non-intimidating, welcoming environment for our members. Our gender identity non-discrimination policy states that members and guests may use all gym facilities based on their sincere self-reported gender identity. The manner in which this member expressed her concerns about the policy exhibited behavior that management at the Midland club deemed inappropriate and disruptive to other members, which is a violation of the membership agreement and as a result her membership was cancelled.
In the service of maintaining a “non-intimidating, welcoming environment,” corporate bigwigs allow a man in a women’s locker room and expel a woman from the gym because she doesn’t want to get naked in front of a strange man. Yes, the man in question was an actual man—you know, the kind born with anatomically correct penises. Even “transactivists” know humans can’t change their sex.
How, pray tell, do club managers verify the “sincerity” of a male member’s or guest’s claim that he wishes to be a woman? And why does sincerity of desire about one’s sex trump the objective state of one’s sex?
How will gym staff know with certainty that a male member or guest is not suffering from a disorder different from gender dysphoria? Perhaps instead of gender dysphoria, the member or guest is suffering from the paraphilia of voyeurism or exhibitionism. Come to think of it, why should Planet Fitness privilege gender dysphoria over other sexuality-related disorders?
How very judgmental and unwelcoming of Planet Fitness to prohibit those who identify as exhibitionists and voyeurs from accessing women’s locker rooms. If gender-confused men are permitted to be in the presence of naked women, why shouldn’t voyeurs be permitted to be in the presence of naked women?
Why shouldn’t exhibitionists be permitted to expose themselves to women? If women are forced to see the exposed members of gender-confused members, why shouldn’t they be compelled to see the exposed members of those who experience unwanted, unchosen exhibitionist desires?
And why can’t those who experience apodysophilia exercise in the nude or “diaper fetishists” parade around in Pampers?
Many people are rightly concerned about the possibility that men who don’t suffer from gender-confusion will exploit this inanity in order to access women’s private facilities with permission and peep with impunity. Others worry about assaults by both genuinely gender-confused men or wicked men who have the appearance of sincerely gender-confused men.
I oppose this kind of pernicious “trans” policy because actual women and girls should not have to be seen naked by strange men. Do husbands, boyfriends, brothers, and fathers want the women they love to be seen naked by strange men who may themselves be naked?
Discussions with our children about “private parts,” privacy, and modesty become meaningless if men (or boys) are permitted to use women’s (or girls) restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing rooms? Gender-specific restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing rooms become irrelevant once objective physical embodiment is declared a meaningless, irrelevant social construct.
But physical embodiment is neither meaningless, nor irrelevant. Physical embodiment matters. Maleness and femaleness matter. Modesty and privacy matter. And objective biological sex matters more than the anti-social construct “gender identity.”
The Left is trying to say without saying too audibly that biological sex is meaningless or at least subordinate to personal desire. In the inverted, perverted world of Leftist sexuality, neither pronouns nor locker rooms can be allowed to correspond to objective biological sex. Language and locker rooms must submit to the totalitarian dictates of sexual revolutionaries.
By now, sane and honest people should be able to see that these sexual anarchists are really emperors wearing no clothes. And without their clothes, everyone in the locker room, including children, can see their penises.
“Therefore the law is paralyzed, and justice never prevails.
The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted.”
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.