Planet fitness bans another woman who objects to man in woman's locker room.

@longtimelurking

If a man deliberately exposed himself.. but it wouldn't be a man would it as the person would simply claim "'I'm a girlie because I like pink frocks' and everyone would go "phew! ok false alarm then. Nothing happening here"

SarahAr
You said:
But the thing is that a GRC does not give people the right to enter female spaces. So it matters nought whether a medical process needs to be followed or self-id is introduced.

So a transwoman with a GRC does not have a right to enter female spaces.

But then in your next post you said:
FWIW transwomen with penises are allowed today to use women's changing rooms (and could sue for discrimination if they are barred).

So a transwoman with a GRC does have a right to enter female spaces.

Are you confused or are there multiple people posting from your account?

If staff had repeated reports of a person harassing women and not acted are they not failing in their duty of care?

Yes, quite possibly. I would hope a judge would give short shrift to a company who said they didn't do anything about the pervy guy in the changing room because they were worried about being transphobic or whatever.

But the fact remains that it is incredibly difficult and expensive, not to mention traumatic, to bring this sort of case. It's not an answer to the concerns over self ID to say there are legal remedies for victims (I know you know this Bowl).

If a man deliberately exposed himself intending to cause alarm or distress then he is committing the offence of exposure not voyeurism. I think he would find it very hard to argue he did not intend to cause alarm and was surprised when people were alarmed

I’m sorry but I am literally laughing out loud at the naïveté of this statement

If you did mean a man, then he does not have a right to enter a changing room under the EA.

Yes, I meant men accessing female spaces, which will be a result of self ID which is what you were discussing. I’m not talking about trans women with a GRC.

You’re honestly telling me you think that institutions will side with the woman making the complaint when the men have plausible means to deny intending any harm?

You really think men that currently go out and flash won’t exploit this opportunity?

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2015/03/07/living/feat-planet-fitness-transgender-member/index.html

This is 2015. It is a different incident.

lc.org/PDFs/Attachments2PRsLAs/2018/071218LtrtoPlanetFitnessLeesburg.pdf

Copy of the letter written to the gym chain by the woman's lawyers.

This just leaves the issue of self ID. If legal self-id comes in then nothing changes.

It certainly changes things for female prisoners. Male prisoners who self ID will no longer have cases looked at case by case, theyvwill simply be transferred.

If self ID comes in, Her Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service will certainly adjust their guidelines to maintain the status quo. If they wanted men to have the instant right to be transferred to the women's estate, then they would have given men this right a long time ago.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2015/03/07/living/feat-planet-fitness-transgender-member/index.html

This is CNN's version.

This just leaves the issue of self ID. If legal self-id comes in then nothing changes

Yes it does. People who have penises will be able to access women’s changing facilities.

Could you provide some legal sources to back up your claims? Just asserting something because you believe it does not make it true, even if you are a man.

FWIW transwomen with penises are allowed today to use women's changing rooms (and could sue for discrimination if they are barred).
See sections 13.57 www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/servicescode_0.pdf

That’s patently untrue. Men could deliberately expose themselves to women and children and then claim to just be getting dressed / using the shower etc

If a man deliberately exposed himself intending to cause alarm or distress then he is committing the offence of exposure not voyeurism. I think he would find it very hard to argue he did not intend to cause alarm and was surprised when people were alarmed.

If you did mean a man, then he does not have a right to enter a changing room under the EA. If you meant a transwomen then this is clearly the case where the exceptions would apply.

But the thing is that a GRC does not give people the right to enter female spaces. So it matters nought whether a medical process needs to be followed or self-id is introduced.

This just leaves the issue of self ID. If legal self-id comes in then nothing changes.

It certainly changes things for female prisoners. Male prisoners who self ID will no longer have cases looked at case by case, theyvwill simply be transferred.

Since there’s nowhere near enough specialist segregation space in the women’s estate, those men will be in with the female prisoners. Showering, locked up.

That’s a fairly significant change. And not a good one. Since 47% are in for sexual offences.

This just leaves the issue of self ID. If legal self-id comes in then nothing changes.

Yes it does. People who have penises will be able to access women’s changing facilities.
I give not a shit who that penis belongs to and how that person identifies, they and their penis has no place in a woman’s changing room just like people with vaginas have no place in the men’s.

This just leaves the issue of self ID. If legal self-id comes in then nothing changes.

Not true. Legal self ID weakens women's case for harassment under the EA and further normalises the idea of males in women's spaces.

Thanks Ofew

I’m thinking along the lines of the single sex space is a safe space by default. Previously staff may have been able to chuck someone out of they felt they were behaving badly but now feel their hands are tied. If staff had repeated reports of a person harassing women and not acted are they not failing in their duty of care?

The website itself is fairly repellent - I’d like to see a report on this incident from a more neutral/balanced source. It’s difficult to assess what has actually happened

I’m sure they’ll mostly be smart enough to go beyond the line of reasonable doubt.

If for the sake of argument we accept the account here, that's what happened. Then a counter claim of sexual assault. It rings true to me and I listened to the alleged police call recording.

That website makes my skin crawl

This just leaves the issue of self ID. If legal self-id comes in then nothing changes. Transwomen already have the right to use the female changing room subject to exceptions, but not to commit the offence of voyeurism. Legal self-id changes nothing.

That’s patently untrue. Men could deliberately expose themselves to women and children and then claim to just be getting dressed / using the shower etc. I’m sure they’ll mostly be smart enough to go beyond the line of reasonable doubt.

Is this reported anywhere else? That site is an absolutely disgusting misogynistic hellscape. The only other sites I can find it on all cite lifesite as the original source.

Can any legal bods chip in here?

Short answer to that Bowl is there may be a private law claim against the establishment for negligence. The victim would have to prove that the establishment had breached a duty of care to women by allowing someone who posed a risk into the changing room, and that it was reasonably foreseeable that they would commit the offence. It would depend on the specifics of course, but my instinct (and this is not my area of law) is that it could be very difficult to prove this. I expect there is case law on different situations where organisations/establishments have negligently "allowed" offences to take place but as I said this isn't my area of law and I haven't looked into it closely.

There may also be a claim for sex discrimination in that the establishment has treated a woman less favourably by putting her in the situation where she is assaulted. Again, I haven't looked at comparable case law on this.

For both these sorts of claim I think the difficulty is that the establishment is one removed from the person who committed the offence, so the victim would have to show that the actions of the establishment were negligent/discriminatory, which might be tricky (but not impossible).

Tell me again how this won't happen, and no one will abuse self ID

Not sure where to begin. The link is to the website of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_Life_Coalition. They are a conservative religious organisation opposing abortion. I would hope that the first action of FWR would be to call them out on this.

I wouldn't trust "Life Site" to present an unbiased account of the issue. This incident also did not occur in the UK. In the UK, if an individual hangs around in the changing room (i.e. does not follow changing room etiquette) then the service provider can ask them to leave. If Ivy was gawping at the other women for sexual purposes, then in the UK she would be committing the offence of voyeurism.

This just leaves the issue of self ID. If legal self-id comes in then nothing changes. Transwomen already have the right to use the female changing room subject to exceptions, but not to commit the offence of voyeurism. Legal self-id changes nothing.

This why I support female only spaces and for others individual cubicles, she was the victim of a rape attempt and not rocket she was concerned, also his behaviour was designed to be inflammatory and intimidate.
I can relate to this as being sexually assaulted then raped by the same guy and his friend as a teenager and even to this day hate getting stripped in front of men can't use a urinal. It's not a game just stay out if you are pre op