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.