Court rules against women’s right to privacy in Planet Fitness case

In 2015, Yvette Cormier was using a Planet Fitness gym when a man who appeared unambiguously male used the women’s locker room. She complained to the gym’s management and was told the man was allowed to be there. After she warned other female gym members that men were allowed in their locker room, the gym revoked her membership. [Link to article on Gender Trender.]

She took them to court, with the following results:

From CBS Detroit:

“Michigan Planet Fitness Wins Key Ruling In Lawsuit Surrounding Transgender Woman In Locker Room

MIDLAND, Mich. (AP) — The Michigan appeals court has ruled in favor of a Midland health club in a lawsuit filed by a woman who said her rights were violated when she encountered a transgender person in the locker room.

The court found no evidence of sexual harassment, noting that Yvette Cormier and a transgender woman were both wearing clothes at Planet Fitness.

Cormier’s membership was terminated a week after the 2015 incident after she returned to the gym and warned other women. Planet Fitness told her that it allows people to use the locker room that matches their identity as part of a “no-judgment policy.”

In a 3-0 decision Thursday, the court said there was nothing illegal about the club yanking Cormier’s membership.”

As Gallus Mag found out in 2015, the man who scared Cormier at the gym was not living full-time as a woman but had a sexual fetish for cross-dressing. He considers himself a member of the “kink” community and conceives of women in misogynist ways.

This court case sets a precedent that is seriously dangerous for women and girls. Men who have not taken any steps toward transitioning—in other words, regular men—are allowed to use a female locker room on a whim, and the law will not deter them. This is due to the success of the trans movement which has convinced many that men’s subjective feelings are more important than their physical reality, and certainly more important than the needs or concerns of women.

It is significant that the court ruled that this was not sexual harassment. Their justification for that is very weak—the two may have been clothed at the time, but a locker room is a place specifically designed for undressing, so it is likely that if they both kept going to the gym, they would see each other undressed at some point. The entire reason Cormier objected to the man’s presence was because this was an area reserved for women to undress privately away from men. That she was dressed when he entered was a lucky circumstance but doesn’t change the fundamental problem here.

Knowing what we know as women, when a porn-soaked “kinky” man tests women’s boundaries by entering our private spaces and making us uncomfortable, that is a sure sign he is an unsafe person to be around. Despite the ruling by the Michigan appeals court, this is an obvious case of sexual harassment.

From here on, any time women join a gym, we should be asking ahead of time whether there will be sex-segregated facilities for our use, and we should refuse to join any gym that does not accommodate us. Women should not be required to undress in front of strange men, and certainly not those who have misogynist sexual fetishes.

At this point, appropriate activism to protect women’s rights to safety and privacy will involve multiple lawsuits to get businesses to provide sex-segregated spaces again and enforce that sex-segregation the way they used to. We are having to redo battles that we already fought and won, because our rights are being systematically taken away by transgender activism.

Since transgender activism seeks to eliminate the rights of women, all women need to vigorously oppose it.

20 thoughts on “Court rules against women’s right to privacy in Planet Fitness case

  1. This! I *hate* using open plan locker spaces due to previous experiences of harassment. I loathe the layout of places that require you to go through the locker room to get topools or other areas, even if I go through this area fully dressed and simply pile clothing on a bench. I have walked out into freezing temperatures in wet clothing because I hate public dressing rooms that much.

    And he didn’t have to undress to put a camera inthe room, which I am fully convinced he did.

    Liked by 6 people

  2. FFs, how ridiculously unfair! She was doing the right thing, and got punished for it… at least she gets to find a better gym. But what an exhausting battle for safety we women must endure, over and over… thank you for informing us all. G

    Liked by 4 people

  3. I have a dim view of political parties generally, but it still gets me thinking about how this kind of thing is just going to drive a stake through the heart of liberal parties such as our Democratic Party in the US, because they just can’t bring themselves to challenge any of this, and more and more people are getting up in arms about it. I know I can’t be the only one who is so angry about this that I really can’t bring myself to vote for anyone who supports it. It’s like the world’s biggest trojan horse, and all any of these pols have to say is “we support LGBTQ” end of discussion. Even if they ran a candidate whose platform made sense otherwise, what’s the point of voting for someone who wants to save the world, but only for men? I’d rather work on other ways of saving the world that don’t write women off as a goddamned feeling.

    Liked by 4 people

    • I know a very nice, very Catholic older lady who mentioned that in her parish, all anyone was talking about was “men using women’s bathrooms.” This was before the election. And many of them were voting Repub because they were so grossed out.

      And all the “liberals” have is, “Well, you shouldn’t be grossed out, you old bigots.”

      a) It’s idiotic to tell someone what to be or not to be disgusted by. That’s a matter of taste. It’s not subject to orders.

      b) People have a right to define their own groups. Even women. Which isn’t news here, but is suddenly unheard of among “liberals.”

      So combine the vague inarticulate sense that your rights are being trampled, and the less vague sense of insult at being told what to like, and guess how many people in the parish the Dems were convincing.

      The most serious effect is, of course, on the women who have to put up with unwelcome people in their spaces. But the second order effects, like losing the votes of people of good will are also nontrivial.

      Liberals are trying really hard to gaslight the world into believing nonsense, but that only works if you have some kind of hold over people. And the more obvious drivel liberals spout, the more they lose the only kind of hold they ever had, that they were better at telling the truth.

      Liked by 3 people

    • It’s been suggested before that the people who have enough political clout and will also have enough motivation to so something about this will be wealthy conservative men with daughters.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I used to believe this, but the harms against women are piling up, and it doesn’t put a dent in any of these transgressions. No matter how great the harms and no matter how many women affected, nothing will change on behalf of women. I firmly believe that when a significant number of men become mildly inconvenienced by all of this (and it’s only a matter of time) things will change. Then and only then. People don’t believe that women matter.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. People don’t have to be undressed to be victims of sexual harassment. When a man is in women’s space, he is harassing women, dressed or undressed. When fully clothed men just have to check their phone while standing outside a women’s restroom, that is sexual harassment. The court sets the bar too high, but we know better. BTW, one way to change the gym policies is for women to realize, you don’t need a gym to be fit. A couple of bleach bottles or kettlebells will do more for you than those silly machines. Let the health clubs be full of men in women’s spaces, while women work out at home.


      • I didn’t mean permanently, I mean as a boycott. If women worked out at home, fitness clubs would go out of business. The remaining ones would advertise that they value women’s privacy and deliver on that. Absenting oneself from businesses that don’t value our business, is the most effective way to change the policy.


        • It has gotten to the point where antidiscrimination laws make that impossible in some places. I keep saying this is a religion because it is faith-based, and I don’t know what else to do but keep pointing this out, that even though it does not seem like what people usually consider to be religions, it acts just like one, and the state has no business enforcing this.

          Liked by 1 person

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 )

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