Planet Fitness and transgenders in locker rooms

[scombrid]

The problem with that is when you have the same anatomy folks trolling for fresh meat amongst people who don't swing in that direction.

That problem is inevitable as homosexuals exist.

It's never been a problem for me. Nobody is touching anybody that doesn't want to be touched I don't think.

There were a couple of creepers at a Bally's where I used to lift but other than a couple of too long looks and wink or two at "fresh meat" they weren't a bother. If the fish didn't bite they moved to new waters. Their behavior was less obnoxious than that to which most passably attractive women were subjected in common areas. Many good looking women were run off by the dogs within a month or two of joining the gym.

 

[dismal]

Well, sure, if you don't give a shit about equal rights.

This would clearly have a disparate negative impact on women as they are generally more concerned about men looking at their hoohas.

Equal right to what? Privacy? A locker room is not one of the places where a person presumes they will have privacy. That's the nature of a locker room. I know quite a few women who will not undress and shower in a locker room. It's their preference. They have the same right to a locker and a shower as anyone else who paid her dues that month.

As for general concern about exposing hoohas and wingdings, how do you explain all the men in my current locker room who put a towel around their waist before undressing? I know it's a small survey sample, but the percent of men who do this is well over half the men who use the locker room in the morning hours.

If they adopt a policy that results in 95% of the women and 5% of the men (effectively rendering the co-ed lockerroom a men's lockerroom) going home to shower isn't that disparate impact?

 

[ronburgundy]

I can see how this could make some women uncomfortable. I think trans-gender issues are going to be quite a bit more difficult to solve in the near future then gay-straight.

Well, what's the rationale behind that lack of comfort which would make them legitimately less comfortable than having a lesbian in the locker room?

I can't think of one which particularly differentiates it from a white racist being undomfortable from having a black man in the locker room.

Whatever the rationale it is at least as legit and no more bigoted than the rationale for why the transgender is uncomfortable in the locker of her own biological sex.

Add another log on the steaming pile of mindless hypocrisy and intolerance masquerading as open-mindedness.

 

[Bronzeage]

Equal right to what? Privacy? A locker room is not one of the places where a person presumes they will have privacy. That's the nature of a locker room. I know quite a few women who will not undress and shower in a locker room. It's their preference. They have the same right to a locker and a shower as anyone else who paid her dues that month.

As for general concern about exposing hoohas and wingdings, how do you explain all the men in my current locker room who put a towel around their waist before undressing? I know it's a small survey sample, but the percent of men who do this is well over half the men who use the locker room in the morning hours.

If they adopt a policy that results in 95% of the women and 5% of the men (effectively rendering the co-ed lockerroom a men's lockerroom) going home to shower isn't that disparate impact?

Why not 85% and 15%, while we're creating statistics? No one is forced to use a locker room.

The real question becomes, "Who is the arbiter of gender assignment?" If a woman has had gender reassignment surgery, which includes some kind of surgically constructed penis, does he(she) qualify to shower in the locker room which features wall mounted urinals?

At what point does a person get to switch toilet facilities and who makes this decision?

 

[dismal]

If they adopt a policy that results in 95% of the women and 5% of the men (effectively rendering the co-ed lockerroom a men's lockerroom) going home to shower isn't that disparate impact?

Why not 85% and 15%, while we're creating statistics? No one is forced to use a locker room.

The real question becomes, "Who is the arbiter of gender assignment?" If a woman has had gender reassignment surgery, which includes some kind of surgically constructed penis, does he(she) qualify to shower in the locker room which features wall mounted urinals?

At what point does a person get to switch toilet facilities and who makes this decision?

Does it matter if it's 85-15? Women are still more negatively affected. Are you saying that's OK?

I am personally fine leaving these sorts of decisions to the private enterprise to make, but I know many people here are very concerned with equality of outcomes and I certainly don't think your idea will provide that.

 

[ronburgundy]

There is no plausible solution to this issue that can have equal outcomes, because everything that solves one person's problem, causes another person's problem.
What LGBT supporters on this issue want is for their and only their discomfort and preferences to be considered, and for everyone else's to be dismissed as bigotry. After all, why would women who never see adult male genitalia outside of the sexual partner's have any preference against showering and changing with complete strangers with male genitalia? As Tom Sawyer argues, they would have to bigots on par with Klan members to feel that way, right?

The reality is that most of the women in that locker room feel discomfort about it, because it would be psychologically implausible for them not to. But their liberal guilt motivates them to suppress those feelings and put the transgender person's comfort above their own, and also sadly because they buy the nonsense that such discomfort makes them a bigot. Meanwhile the transgender person is caring only about themselves and has no regard that the pursuit of their own comfort in locker room choice causes many others discomfort for reasons at least as legit as their own reasons for not wanting to change in the men's room. To delude themselves that they aren't being a selfish, they hypocritically dismiss everyone else's comfort as bigotry.

 

[Bronzeage]

Why not 85% and 15%, while we're creating statistics? No one is forced to use a locker room.

The real question becomes, "Who is the arbiter of gender assignment?" If a woman has had gender reassignment surgery, which includes some kind of surgically constructed penis, does he(she) qualify to shower in the locker room which features wall mounted urinals?

At what point does a person get to switch toilet facilities and who makes this decision?

Does it matter if it's 85-15? Women are still more negatively affected. Are you saying that's OK?

I am personally fine leaving these sorts of decisions to the private enterprise to make, but I know many people here are very concerned with equality of outcomes and I certainly don't think your idea will provide that.

What the fuck is an "equality of outcome" with regard to locker rooms?

Again, I will stress the point, no one is required to undress in front of anyone else. This seems to get lost in your analysis.

If negative impacts were a real thing in this discussion, we would have to account for all those men and women who will not disrobe in the presence of the same sex. They avoid the locker room for the same reason as those who do not want a transgender person to see them naked. No one is arguing for them. Why is it suddenly and issue when a transgender person appears?

 

[Nexus]

Why is it suddenly and issue when a transgender person appears?

Because the population of women not wanting to undress in front of strange men is much higher than the population not wanting to undress in front of anyone at all. Ronburgundy called it, the shem is selfish and only cares about its preferences.

 

[dismal]

Does it matter if it's 85-15? Women are still more negatively affected. Are you saying that's OK?

I am personally fine leaving these sorts of decisions to the private enterprise to make, but I know many people here are very concerned with equality of outcomes and I certainly don't think your idea will provide that.

What the fuck is an "equality of outcome" with regard to locker rooms?

Again, I will stress the point, no one is required to undress in front of anyone else. This seems to get lost in your analysis.

If negative impacts were a real thing in this discussion, we would have to account for all those men and women who will not disrobe in the presence of the same sex. They avoid the locker room for the same reason as those who do not want a transgender person to see them naked. No one is arguing for them. Why is it suddenly and issue when a transgender person appears?

Don't you think that someone who would prefer to shower at the gym but doesn't because they don't want a person of the opposite sex gazing at their genitals has suffered some harm?

If we determined that if lockerrooms were co-ed women would be far more likely to suffer this harm than men wouldn't the "go home and shower if you don't like it" policy you espouse be a policy with disparate impact?

This is not an entirely new concept as we have been debating "potty parity laws" in our society for decades now. One would think allocating equal floor space to men and women would be "equality", but it turns out women get allocated a lot more in most legal systems:

Current laws in the United Kingdom require a 1:1 female–male ratio of restroom space in public buildings.[12] The International Building Code requires a 2:1[citation needed] female–male ratio of toilets.[13] New York City Council passed a law in 2005 requiring this in all public buildings.[13][14] An advisory ruling had been passed in 2003.[14] U.S. state laws vary between 1:1, 3:2, and 2:1 ratios.[1] The Uniform Plumbing Code specifies a 4:1 ratio in movie theaters.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potty_parity

Would you take us back to the era where private enterprises could simply make whatever choices they want about their facilities, and if people don't like the outcomes they can suck it?

 

[Jarhyn]

Jesus fuck. This whole thing reminds me of the south park episode "EEK! A Penis!".

I go to my normal standby whenever I see this melodrama play out: if it's such a problem, put everyone in the same shower room, and have a smaller set of individual shower rooms (possibly at premium rates) for people who care that much about it. You can label the new genders 'mature adults', and 'immature fuckbags'.

 

[Bronzeage]

What the fuck is an "equality of outcome" with regard to locker rooms?

Again, I will stress the point, no one is required to undress in front of anyone else. This seems to get lost in your analysis.

If negative impacts were a real thing in this discussion, we would have to account for all those men and women who will not disrobe in the presence of the same sex. They avoid the locker room for the same reason as those who do not want a transgender person to see them naked. No one is arguing for them. Why is it suddenly and issue when a transgender person appears?

Don't you think that someone who would prefer to shower at the gym but doesn't because they don't want a person of the opposite sex gazing at their genitals has suffered some harm?

If we determined that if lockerrooms were co-ed women would be far more likely to suffer this harm than men wouldn't the "go home and shower if you don't like it" policy you espouse be a policy with disparate impact?

This is not an entirely new concept as we have been debating "potty parity laws" in our society for decades now. One would think allocating equal floor space to men and women would be "equality", but it turns out women get allocated a lot more in most legal systems:

Current laws in the United Kingdom require a 1:1 female–male ratio of restroom space in public buildings.[12] The International Building Code requires a 2:1[citation needed] female–male ratio of toilets.[13] New York City Council passed a law in 2005 requiring this in all public buildings.[13][14] An advisory ruling had been passed in 2003.[14] U.S. state laws vary between 1:1, 3:2, and 2:1 ratios.[1] The Uniform Plumbing Code specifies a 4:1 ratio in movie theaters.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potty_parity

Would you take us back to the era where private enterprises could simply make whatever choices they want about their facilities, and if people don't like the outcomes they can suck it?

I don't see any harm at all. Certainly no more than the person who will not disrobe in front of the same sex. The motivation is the same and the solution is the same. Should we make allowance for the shy, in the same way we mandate handicap access? Maybe the symbol could be a face with hands over the eyes, or a stick figure with hands over the crotch.

If you truly think allowing more square footage for women's restrooms is somehow unfair, you show less understanding of women than I previously credited you.

 

[ronburgundy]

Jesus fuck. This whole thing reminds me of the south park episode "EEK! A Penis!".

I go to my normal standby whenever I see this melodrama play out: if it's such a problem, put everyone in the same shower room, and have a smaller set of individual shower rooms (possibly at premium rates) for people who care that much about it. You can label the new genders 'mature adults', and 'immature fuckbags'.

That's fine, but then all transgenders currently trying to switch locker/bathrooms would be in the "immature fuckbags" room, since it is their discomfort with their own or other people's genitalia that is causing them to demand use of room that doesn't match their biological sex.

This woman's reaction might be immature, but not as much as that of the transgenders who can't cope changing with people who share their same genitalia.

It the hypocrisy of those who are so supportive of the transgender but so attacking of those affected by their demands that is most glaring. I have more respect for the equal opportunity haters, than for the biased haters pretending that they are open-minded.

 

[fast]

Some campgrounds have individual completely sealed lined up shower amenities lined up such that a person of any gender/sex can enter in complete privacy adjacent to another. Seems to be a better option that chancing unnecessary legal issues. Besides, a 20 year old shouldn't have to endure the open weirdness from new-age anomalies anymore than a 16 year old--male or female.

 

[arkirk]

Jesus fuck. This whole thing reminds me of the south park episode "EEK! A Penis!".

I go to my normal standby whenever I see this melodrama play out: if it's such a problem, put everyone in the same shower room, and have a smaller set of individual shower rooms (possibly at premium rates) for people who care that much about it. You can label the new genders 'mature adults', and 'immature fuckbags'.

That's fine, but then all transgenders currently trying to switch locker/bathrooms would be in the "immature fuckbags" room, since it is their discomfort with their own or other people's genitalia that is causing them to demand use of room that doesn't match their biological sex.

This woman's reaction might be immature, but not as much as that of the transgenders who can't cope changing with people who share their same genitalia.

It the hypocrisy of those who are so supportive of the transgender but so attacking of those affected by their demands that is most glaring. I have more respect for the equal opportunity haters, than for the biased haters pretending that they are open-minded.

Actually, transexuals can just want to change with people who share the same genital configuration as they have. You have a lot to learn about transexuals.

You just can't get over the fact that a lot of people don't think just like you. A lot of us are open minded and completely flexible. I wonder what you would do in a nudist camp...declare everybody a "fuckbag." Now THAT'S immature! The purpose of locker rooms is to get dressed or undressed for gym...and to lock up your shit so nobody steals it. Some of us can accept that and have no particular reason to declare anybody a "fuckbag" whatever that is! Actually it is vituperative expression of the frustration of those make such utterances. The gym I go to has a lot of lockers in the weight room for people who come to the gym in workout clothes on their bikes and who want to shower when they get home. You are making far too much out of locker rooms.

 

[fast]

That's fine, but then all transgenders currently trying to switch locker/bathrooms would be in the "immature fuckbags" room, since it is their discomfort with their own or other people's genitalia that is causing them to demand use of room that doesn't match their biological sex.

This woman's reaction might be immature, but not as much as that of the transgenders who can't cope changing with people who share their same genitalia.

It the hypocrisy of those who are so supportive of the transgender but so attacking of those affected by their demands that is most glaring. I have more respect for the equal opportunity haters, than for the biased haters pretending that they are open-minded.

Actually, transexuals can just want to change with people who share the same genital configuration as they have. You have a lot to learn about transexuals.

You just can't get over the fact that a lot of people don't think just like you. A lot of us are open minded and completely flexible. I wonder what you would do in a nudist camp...declare everybody a "fuckbag." Now THAT'S immature! The purpose of locker rooms is to get dressed or undressed for gym...and to lock up your shit so nobody steals it. Some of us can accept that and have no particular reason to declare anybody a "fuckbag" whatever that is! Actually it is vituperative expression of the frustration of those make such utterances. The gym I go to has a lot of lockers in the weight room for people who come to the gym in workout clothes on their bikes and who want to shower when they get home. You are making far too much out of locker rooms.

He put the term in quotes, presumably as if to say, "to use your word," so since he didn't introduce the term he's mirroring back, somehow I don't think we should find his verbiage as distasteful as it seems to appear to you.

 

[Jarhyn]

Jesus fuck. This whole thing reminds me of the south park episode "EEK! A Penis!".

I go to my normal standby whenever I see this melodrama play out: if it's such a problem, put everyone in the same shower room, and have a smaller set of individual shower rooms (possibly at premium rates) for people who care that much about it. You can label the new genders 'mature adults', and 'immature fuckbags'.

That's fine, but then all transgenders currently trying to switch locker/bathrooms would be in the "immature fuckbags" room, since it is their discomfort with their own or other people's genitalia that is causing them to demand use of room that doesn't match their biological sex.

This woman's reaction might be immature, but not as much as that of the transgenders who can't cope changing with people who share their same genitalia.

It the hypocrisy of those who are so supportive of the transgender but so attacking of those affected by their demands that is most glaring. I have more respect for the equal opportunity haters, than for the biased haters pretending that they are open-minded.

Man, you must be a paragon of transexualality to know what all the trans people want!

In reality, trans people are fighting very hard for the simple and understandable right to be identified and classified as their perceived gender. They don't want to say 'eek! A penis', they want to say 'quit pigeon holing me into "man", I'm a woman, get over it'. If the changing room isn't a battleground in the fight to be accepted as their perceived gender, if it isn't yet another reminder that their body isn't what they feel it should be, then the issue goes entirely away.

For trans people it has nothing to do with seeing the right or wrong kind of genitals and everything to do with society constantly violating the social fiction that they are their desired sex, especially in a world where doctors are shitheads when it comes to allowing people to seek a change of genitals and construction or complete removal of breasts.

Really, have you ever even once considered what it is like to go through life feeling disfigured, surrounded by an ubiquitous society that constantly forces you to be reminded of how you are disfigured, how you aren't really put together right?

 

[repoman]

I hope someday we will be able to fix these people and make them Cis.

 

[fast]

I hope someday we will be able to fix these people and make them Cis.

Well, when a man (who thinks he's a woman) likes a woman (who thinks she's a man), and they both have a sex change and we accept that they're heterosexual, there will be too many of us broken to do any fixin'.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That problem is inevitable as homosexuals exist.

It's never been a problem for me. Nobody is touching anybody that doesn't want to be touched I don't think.

There were a couple of creepers at a Bally's where I used to lift but other than a couple of too long looks and wink or two at "fresh meat" they weren't a bother. If the fish didn't bite they moved to new waters. Their behavior was less obnoxious than that to which most passably attractive women were subjected in common areas. Many good looking women were run off by the dogs within a month or two of joining the gym.

Some people are uncomfortable being naked in front of someone that regards them with reciprocated sexual interest.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Jesus fuck. This whole thing reminds me of the south park episode "EEK! A Penis!".

I go to my normal standby whenever I see this melodrama play out: if it's such a problem, put everyone in the same shower room, and have a smaller set of individual shower rooms (possibly at premium rates) for people who care that much about it. You can label the new genders 'mature adults', and 'immature fuckbags'.

Good idea, although I'm sure the discrimination crowd would scream because of the disparate impact.