Planet Fitness Gym Bans Women for Refusing to Shower with Transgender Men

© press

Planet Fitness has caused outrage after introducing a new policy to ban women from their gyms who refuse to share a locker room with men who "identify" as female.

The health club claims its policies are designed to make their gyms a "judgment-free zone," meaning they allow customers to decide for themselves which locker room they use depending on which gender they choose to identify with.

The rules mean that users are able to flip from identifying as male or female unchallenged to encourage "gender fluidity."

The "judgment-free" policy, therefore, allows a male customer to use the female showers alongside other women and children provided he's "identifying" a woman when he does so.

One non-transgender woman is now taking the gym to court after she was accused of a "hate crime" and banned from using their facilities after refusing to share the locker room with male customers who identified as transgender women.

In her complaint, she says that she was sexually harassed whilst she was showing by a naked man who claimed to identify as female.

© press

According to Life Site News, Liberty Counsel has taken on the case of a Florida woman, ‘Mrs. H.,’ who alleges that Planet Fitness discriminated against her after she objected to the presence of a man––Jordan ‘Ivy’ Rice––in the women’s locker room.  

Mrs. H.’s membership was terminated because of her repeated vocal objections in the presence of other female gym patrons.

“This is not the only incident with Mr. Rice known to Planet Fitness,” according to a letter sent by Liberty Counsel to the CEO of Planet Fitness.  

“Another woman reported that he exposed his naked body to her in the women's locker room at this location.

"In another instance, he was involved in an argument with another woman over use of the tanning room.

"Misogynist, anti-woman harassment should have no place in Planet Fitness locations, and violates Florida law.”

Liberty Counsel (LC) is a national litigation, education and public policy organization with an emphasis on civil liberties and the First Amendment.

“Planet Fitness must immediately reinstate Mrs. H’s membership, and make changes to its membership and locker room policies to prevent blatant sex-based harassment by males in the women’s lockers and restrooms,” the letter insists.  

It explains:

Mrs. H. is the survivor of an attempted rape, and as such, is keenly aware of and sensitive to men in places where they do not have a legitimate purpose, and where she and other women are in a position of vulnerability. On May 29, 2018, the staff at the Leesburg location revoked Mrs. H.’s membership after she was intimidated and alarmed by Mr. Rice in the women’s locker room at this location, and complained about him.

Mrs. H. entered and noticed him. She was disturbed by his presence, politely confronted him and asked him to leave the women’s locker room. Instead, he smirked back at her, and continued to stare at her, remaining standing in front of the mirror “applying makeup,” where he had a full view of every single woman entering or exiting the shower area and every single locker, Mrs. H.’s locker, which was directly behind him within three (3) feet.

When Mr. Rice refused to leave, Mrs. H. herself left to give him time to finish what he was doing, so she could use the restroom in privacy. Mr. Rice remained there for at least an hour, “applying makeup,” to intentionally deny Mrs. H. the privacy she desired. He was observed to have entered and exited the locker room, wearing the same clothes, and had not showered or changed. Despite a male employee observing that Mr. Rice’s behavior was “over the top,” staff did not intervene and ask him to finish his business but permitted him to monopolize the women’s locker room. This impeded Mrs. H.’s rightful use of the women’s locker room.

A records request reveals that Mr. Rice (incredibly) had called the police to falsely report that he had been “sexually harassed” by Mrs. H. He can be heard on his 911 call, following Mrs. H. across the parking lot of the establishment, over into the next parking lot, calmly relaying to the dispatcher his and Mrs. H.’s appearances, a description of Mrs. H.’s vehicle, and the direction in which she was headed. The fact that he was and is a man was evident to the dispatcher, who repeatedly refers to him as “sir” on that call. No police report was filed.  

© press

Rice’s call to the police can be heard here.  

“The Florida Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on religion and biological ‘sex’ in places of public accommodation,” according to an LC report. “

The Act guarantees the full and equal enjoyment of "the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation to all persons without discrimination.”

“Planet Fitness is endangering women by allowing men to sexually harass them in the women's facilities and punishing those who object,” said Mat Staver, founder, and chairman of Liberty Counsel.

“This is discrimination based on sex, in violation of Florida law as well as several of Planet Fitness' own policies.”

“Liberty Counsel demands that Planet Fitness reinstate our client's membership and adhere to the law and its own policies and protect the privacy of women,” continued Staver.  

“If this gym does not respect women's legal and privacy rights, there are other gyms which will, and there are courts that will remedy this blatant disregard of women.”

This isn’t the first time Planet Fitness has exposed its female members to danger in their gym’s locker rooms.

In 2015, a Michigan woman encountered a man who identified as a woman in a Planet Fitness locker room.  

Planet Fitness management told her the man had a right to use the women’s locker room because he identifies as ‘female.’  

Troubled by the incident, she returned to the gym for several days, warning other female gym members about the possibility of encountering a man in their locker room.  

When Planet Fitness terminated her membership, she filed a lawsuit claiming a violation of the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act for breach of contract which was dismissed by a local judge, whose ruling was later upheld by the Michigan Court of Appeals.