24 Hour’s Equal Opportunity Policy
24 Hour Fitness has a corporate policy on locker rooms. You can guess what it is without breaking a sweat.
RESTROOM AND LOCKER ROOM ACCESSIBILITY-TRANSGENDER EQUAL OPPORTUNITY POLICY
As set forth in 24 Hour’s Equal Opportunity Policy, all members shall have full and equal access to the club facility. Consistent with this Policy, all members shall have access to the restroom and locker room facilities that correspond to the member’s gender identity, regardless of the member’s sex assigned at birth. For example, transgender women (who were born male but identify as female) are permitted to use the women’s facilities, and vice versa for transgender men. Each member should determine the most appropriate option for her/him/themself. Any member who has a need or desire for increased privacy, regardless of the reason, will be provided access to a single-person facility, when available. No member, however, shall be required to use such a facility.
That’s interesting because it’s a contradiction. Women can’t actually have full and equal access to the club facility given the fact that men are allowed to use the women’s locker room.
Illustration of how this is so:
That’s not equal access.
How effing incoherent. You can’t be born male and have your sex assigned at birth all at the same time. This shit gets stupider by the minute.
You’d think they’d have run out of stupid by now, but no.
I think a lot of the incoherence gets overlooked in the same way that eggcorns and malapropisms do. People say things like “could care less” and don’t even register that what they’re saying is literally the opposite of what they intend. Likewise, they refer to “assigned sex” and don’t examine their own words for even the barest fraction of a moment.
It’s just funny that you get basically the same reaction when pointing out the problems.
I wonder if the amount of women customers they lose will be offset by the amount of “transwomen” customers they gain. I’m sure the odds are against it.
twiliter: One suspects that at least one of two things is true of such companies’ decision makers.
1. They actually believe that policies like this are popular and in their financial interest.
2. They are willing to tank their companies for the sake of the cause.
Exactly NiV, I call it the Dylan Mulvaney Effect. They probably haven’t heard of it.
I suspect an “inclusive” locker room is less of a problem (in a Portland-ish area) than trying to sell a tranny TikToker to rightoids.
Can I suggest that every genuinely assigned at birth female carry a broad-tip black felt pen and write in bold letters across the top of any such sign: ‘RAPISTS AND MOLESTERS WELCOME HERE.!!!!!’
Or ‘OWNERS OF DONGERS AND OTHER MALE APPENDAGES ARE DIRECTED TO USE THE FRONT DOOR OF THE POLICE STATION AT [address of nearest such supplied] AS THEIR URINAL.’
Could work wonders, and worth a try, surely.
If they could be persuaded to post the sign on the front door (and change their locker room/restroom signage to reflect the actual policy) it could be acceptable. As long as trannies don’t have an inherent right to use the facilities they want and it is the establishment giving them that right the free market will sort it out in short order.
Not saying anyone would actually *like* it as policy, but I could see it being workable. Women then have a right to go anywhere if they’re willing to put up with trannies but trannies only get what they want if an establishment wants them to and there are no surprises.
I’ve occasionally wondered if a reverse protest could work, malicious compliance style. Get a swarm of men, all of whom decide that morning to declare themselves trans, and invade the locker room all at once, all day long. Instead of a single guy, who can make a simpering face (under pancake makeup) about being so heavily ganged-up on, just be a horde of dudebros calling each other Sally (i suggest they all go by the same feminine name, to help underline the point). Do this for a couple of weeks, so that any woman currently a member gets fed up enough to inform management that they can either change the policy, or discontinue the women’s memberships.
Don’t forget the “There maybe pee on the toilet seats, proceed with caution” signs.
I like the malicious compliance idea.
I like the malicious compliance idea too, but make it too obvious and they’d find an excuse to eject the Sallys or whine about mean transphobes on the Wrong Side of History.
I propose doing it one man at a time, each one being just obnoxious enough to bother the handmaidens while avoiding charges of disturbing the peace.
I was much amused reading the post, given that “member” is one of the many colloquial terms for a penis, and considering the policy in this light, it is accurate.
On the matter of malicious compliance, I propose a somewhat different strategy. The men ought to perform some token of femininity (dress, skirt, pink sneakers, lipstick, hair bows etc) and then use the men’s facilities. If questioned, they are to say that they feel comfortable in them, and ought not be displaced. Act extremely offended if anyone suggests they shouldn’t be there. Ask at the desk if it’s actually okay to use the men’s in your skirt.
BKiSA, that sounds superficially workable, but the problem is, it restricts the availability of spaces for women. Men who claim to be women can go about anywhere, and places that don’t have that policy, they get the added benefit of being able to complain loudly about how they are the victim of literal violence.
Meanwhile, the women can’t go to their club, their grocery store, their job, because of the toilet policies. Yeah, if you don’t like it, go somewhere else. In Nebraska, sure, that’s a possibility. In California, Oregon, or Washington, not so much.
And in my case, my work had that sort of bathroom policy. That would require me to remain home from work, which would lead to my ultimate termination, which would ruin my career, and all because some man wanted to put on a dress.
As usual, this limits women’s choices while allowing men to do whatever the hell they please. It’s really not much better than telling women not to walk around anyplace there are men if they don’t want to be raped.
Faced with an outbreak of malicious compliance, I suspect that the gym staff would somehow, suddenly manifest a surprisingly convenient ability to be able to distinguish the maliciously compliant men pretending to be men pretending to be women, from the genuine, opportunistic, predatory men pretending to be women, and start acting as gatekeepers for the benefit of the latter group of men, despite having refused to gatekeep for the sake of the safety and dignity of women. They have their priorities, and they are fucked up.