Staff Reports
A recent incident at a Gold’s Gym in Los Angeles has reignited the fiery debate over gender identity policies and the safety of women in sex-segregated spaces. Tish Hyman, a Grammy-nominated singer and long-time gym member, found herself at the center of controversy after confronting a transgender woman in the women’s locker room. According to Hyman, she was naked in the locker room when a biological male identifying as a transgender woman entered, causing her immediate distress and discomfort. Despite her objections, the gym stood by its policy allowing access based on gender identity, ultimately leading to both parties being removed and Hyman losing her membership.
This event is emblematic of the broader clash between progressive inclusion measures and the fundamental rights of biological women to privacy and security. California law, including the Unruh Civil Rights Act, mandates that facilities permit access according to a person’s gender identity, but this has come under growing criticism for overlooking the real concerns of women who do not feel safe sharing intimate spaces with biological males. Hyman’s experience—being punished for speaking out—highlights how these policies can sometimes prioritize ideology over the safety and dignity of women.
The response from the gym was telling. Instead of addressing the legitimate privacy concerns raised, Gold’s Gym effectively sided with policy over people. No public statement apologizing or reconsidering its approach has surfaced, and the removal of Hyman’s membership sends a chilling message to women who might consider raising similar concerns. This reflects a disturbing pattern where corporations, fearing backlash from activist groups or regulatory bodies, sacrifice the rights of women to uphold unquestioned adherence to inclusion policies.
What this incident underscores is the urgent need for a rational and balanced approach. Women like Hyman are not opposing transgender rights—they simply demand protections within their own sex-segregated spaces, a reasonable expectation for bodily privacy. The solution isn’t to erase women’s spaces in the name of ideology but to adopt sensible accommodations, such as private, single-occupancy restrooms and changing areas, that respect everyone’s rights without forcing biological women into uncomfortable and vulnerable situations.
Ultimately, the Gold’s Gym confrontation is far more than a clash between individuals—it’s a cultural flashpoint revealing the deep disconnect between woke policies and common sense protections. When the voices of women are silenced or punished for defending their privacy, society loses its moral compass. America must find a way to honor both dignity and inclusion without forcing women to compromise their safety in the process.
