[Ferrer]

Originally posted by Zoraluv

Am I reading the same article as you guys...
cuz
omg I can't read worth **** nvm. Go planet fitness

Omg I also had to read it twice to get it

Slay Planet Fitness!

[duybeeGAshantiGA]

I got a headache from reading this thread

[MadelineXPepito]

Originally posted by Trent W

Im all for respect and everything, but is it okay that a woman who was a man sometime ago shares room with other women?

that's what I understood from the article

She has never been a man. Only her body. It means that unless she was a lesbian/bi she never felt attracted to other women and wouldn't have any impulse to harrass them. And no one bans lesbians and bi women from gyms because women aren't as trashy as men.

[that G.U.Y.]

Originally posted by iStanGaga

I would not want my wife or daughter being watched as they undress in front of this cross-dresser. This stuff has gone too far.

Sucks for you, hunty

[Thisisit]

Originally posted by Trent W

Yeah but that's something extremely hard to digest for people, if I were a woman I would be uncomfortable, I would never disrespect the person or offend her but people have to admit is weird to be in that kind of situation.

Originally posted by Trent W

My point is not about how I feel, is about much sense will this would make, you can't expect the whole world to be okay with it, one thing is to be respectful and tolerant, and other to give access to a lock room. Is very different.

Originally posted by Trent W

Yes but they were born men since the beginning, they have no other choice but to stay there. A man that becomes woman is a completely different story. I agree to be tolerant but giving access to a lock room is just too much for most people including me, even a lot of gays here in this forum would agree with me.

Originally posted by Trent W

That's not true, and I've never said anything homophobic or transphobic here, I just see everything from a cold perspective, most member here would directly bash the woman because she doesn't fit their agenda, but she has a very good point that I also brought in this thread.

You are just mad I'm not supporting YOUR agenda, sorry.

If you saw everything from a "cold perspective" you would stop wetting yourself over what little miss hysterical may or may not find "uncomfortable" and recognize that she broke the gyms policy and as such the contract between her and the gym became void and her membership was cancelled.

[A Little Unruly]

[Thisisit]

Originally posted by uhoh-ohno

No, it's not a parallel situation.

First of all, let me say that I can’t remember the last time any woman was harmed in a public locker room, dressing room, or bathroom by a man cis gendered or otherwise. So, there’s that, and then, there’s the fact that even though transwomen aren’t cis-women, they are still women, but Homophobic, straight men do not fear gay men because of any safety concerns. So, theoretically, a trans-man could be in a men’s locker room, and probably no one would care.

Women, however, do have reason to fear men. That’s where this is coming from. It’s illogical, given how no one seems to remember the last time a woman was harmed in a public locker/dressing/bathroom by a man, but it’s not your garden variety, straight male homophobia.

It was a correct analogy. Analogies aren't required to be the same in every sense (otherwise they'd be identities), they are used to challenge an implied premise. Here the implied premise was that anyone who feels uncomfortable about someone else in a locker room automatically has a valid point, and the gay analogy successful rebukes that.