I recently happened upon two articles that, while seemingly similar, resulted in different outcomes.
The first article involved a woman who felt uncomfortable when a transgendered man was in the women’s locker room. The individual was male and looked male, but identified as a woman.
The second article involved a college woman who felt uncomfortable around a male student who resembled a man who had raped her.
In this era of political correctness, it seems that it’s enough merely to feel uncomfortable about someone in order to completely upend that person’s life. The male student, who had done absolutely nothing wrong, was thoroughly investigated and, even after nothing untoward was discovered, was hit with a restraining order and forced to keep a distance from the woman because it would create a “sexually hostile environment.” This man had his life utterly disrupted for no other reason than because he looked like someone else.
Following the logic of political correctness, one would imagine that the transgendered individual, who had created a potential “sexually hostile environment” as well, would be banned from using the women’s locker room. One would be wrong. The woman who felt uncomfortable had her membership cancelled.
How could two instances where a woman felt unsafe have such different outcomes? Because it seems that while a woman’s rights trump a man’s, the rights of a man who claims to be a woman trump a woman’s. This is what happens with political correctness. It’s easier to snub a woman than it is someone from the LGBQTWXYZ camp, and it’s easier to snub a man than it is a woman. It has absolutely nothing to do any more with what’s right and what’s wrong, but with what group it’s more expedient to side with.
In a fair world, the poor student whose only transgression was being born looking a certain way would not have been put through all that. Yes, it’s unfortunate that he looks like the man who raped the female student, but that’s not his fault; he should not have to pay such a steep price for that.
And in a fair world, Planet Fitness would have done its best to provide a safe place for all. A company that prides itself on its “gender identity non-discrimination policy” would not just have a men’s and women’s locker room. Isn’t the company tacitly admitting that there are only two genders by not having alternate locker rooms for those who may not identify as either male or female? After all, according to Facebook, there are fifty-eight different gender identities. If any of those don’t cover it, they also have a “fill-in-the-blank” option. Why is no one going after Planet Fitness for not creating an environment where people of any gender can feel comfortable? So much for a “judgment-free zone.”