Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Planet Fitness says ‘discomfort’ not a reason to ban ‘transgender’ men from women’s locker rooms

Published

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

The company’s stock plummeted after it terminated a member who exposed a man shaving in a woman’s locker room in front of a girl estimated to be around 12 years old.

Popular exercise chain Planet Fitness is doubling down on its prioritization of “gender identity” over female customers’ welfare, putting in writing that “discomfort” over sharing intimate facilities with the opposite sex should not be accommodated.

Planet Fitness, which for years has allowed gender-confused men in women’s locker rooms, came back in the news this month when an Alaskan Planet Fitness member named Patricia Silva shared online a video she took of a man who “identifies” as a woman shaving in a women’s locker room. She said that at the time of the incident, a girl estimated to be 12 years old was sitting in a corner, wrapped in a towel, and “freaked out” by having an adult male in her changing area.

In accordance with the company’s woke priorities, however, instead of removing the man, Planet Fitness revoked Silva’s membership, citing her violation of a policy against photographing other gym members.

“So, I would like for you women to stand up and have a voice and stop these shenanigans,” Silva said. “You have authority! Use your authority.”

Since the story broke, Planet Fitness’s stock price has dropped from $66.92 on March 7 to $56.46 on March 19. “The chain saw a $400 million dive in valuation from $5.3 billion to $4.9 billion,” Fox Business reported Thursday.

But the company is digging in its heels.

Chief corporate affairs officer McCall Gosselin told the Christian Post that the policy is part of the company’s vision of an “inclusive environment,” and that its “gender identity non-discrimination policy states that members and guests may use the gym facilities that best align with their sincere, self-reported gender identity.” The company also said that members claiming trans status may only be asked to leave “if it is confirmed that a member is acting in bad faith” and is not sincerely gender confused.

Libs of TikTok also shared a page from Planet Fitness’s operations manual, which states that “Some members may feel uncomfortable with a transgender member using the same locker room facilities, bathrooms, showers, or other facilities/programs separated by sex,” but “this discomfort is not a reason to deny access to the transgender members.” It calls on staff to resolve such situations by attempting to “foster a climate of understanding,” i.e., transgender accommodation.

The company “reserves the right to terminate a person’s membership immediately for any violation of this policy,” which also requires staff (but not explicitly members) to honor preferred names and gender pronouns.

Conservatives have long argued that forcing girls to share intimate facilities such as bathrooms, showers, or changing areas with members of the opposite sex violates their privacy rights, subjects them to needless emotional stress, and gives potential male predators a viable pretext to enter female bathrooms or lockers by simply claiming transgender status. (Planet Fitness ostensibly accounts for the last danger by reserving the right to eject men who are only faking gender confusion, but in practice such a policy is unlikely to be enforced for fear of being branded “intolerant” and the difficulty of proving what may be going on in someone’s mind.)

The harm has been highlighted by University of Pennsylvania swimmer William “Lia” Thomas, who reportedly retains male genitalia and is still attracted to women yet “identifies” as female and lesbian, causing his female teammates unrest due to sharing lockers with them; and by Loudoun County Public Schools in Virginia, where a female student was raped by a “transgender” classmate in a girls bathroom.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Brownstone Institute / 4 hours ago

How Did a Small Group Do This?

Agriculture / 16 hours ago

The Enemies of Food Freedom

Brownstone Institute / 17 hours ago

The Trouble with Testing

Economy

Carbon tax costs Canadian economy billions

Published on

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Author: Franco Terrazzano 

This tax costs Canadians big time at the gas pump, on home heating bills, on the farm and at the dinner table.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on the federal government to scrap the carbon tax in light of newly released government data showing the tax will cost the Canadian economy about $25 billion in 2030.

“Once again, we see the government’s own data showing what hardworking Canadians already know: the carbon tax costs Canada big time,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “The carbon tax makes the necessities of life more expensive and it will cost our economy billions of dollars.

“Prime Minister Justin Trudeau must scrap his carbon tax now.”

The government of Canada released modelling showing the cost of the carbon tax on the Canadian economy Thursday.

“The country’s GDP is expected to be about $25 billion lower in 2030 due to carbon pricing than it would be otherwise,”  reports the Globe and Mail.

Canada contributes about 1.5 per cent of global emissions.

Government data shows emissions are going up in Canada. In 2022, the latest year of data, emissions in Canada were 708 megatonnes of CO2, an increase of 9.3 megatonnes from 2021.

The federal carbon tax currently costs 17 cents per litre of gasoline, 21 cents per litre of diesel and 15 cents per cubic metre of natural gas.

The carbon tax adds about $13 to the cost of filling up a minivan, about $20 to the cost of filling up a pickup truck and about $200 to the cost of filling up a big rig truck with diesel.

Farmers are charged the carbon tax for heating their barns and drying grains with natural gas and propane. The carbon tax will cost Canadian farmers $1 billion by 2030, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

“No matter how many times this government tries to put lipstick on the carbon tax pig, the reality is clear,” said Kris Sims, CTF Alberta Director. “This tax costs Canadians big time at the gas pump, on home heating bills, on the farm and at the dinner table. Trudeau should make life more affordable and improve the Canadian economy by scrapping his carbon tax.”

Continue Reading

Business

New York and Vermont Seek to Impose a Retroactive Climate Tax

Published on

From Heartland Daily News

By Joshua Loucks for the Cato Institute.

Energy producers will be subject to retroactive taxes in New York if the state assembly passes Senate Bill S2129A, known as the “Climate Change Superfund Act.” The superfund legislation seeks to impose a retroactive tax on energy companies that have emitted greenhouse gases (GHGs) and operated within the state over the last seventy years.

If passed, the new law will impose $75 billion in repayment fees for “historical polluters,” who lawmakers assert are primarily responsible for climate change damages within the state. The state will “assign liability to and require compensation from companies commensurate with their emissions” over the last “70 years or more.” The bill would establish a standard of strict liability, stating that “companies are required to pay into the fund because the use of their products caused the pollution. No finding of wrongdoing is required.”

New York is not alone in this effort. Superfunds built on retroactive taxes on GHG emissions are becoming increasingly popular. Vermont recently enacted similar legislation, S.259 (Act 122), titled the “Climate Superfund Act,” in which the state also retroactively taxes energy producers for historic emissions. Similar bills have also been introduced in Maryland and Massachusetts.

Climate superfund legislation seems to have one purpose: to raise revenue by taxing a politically unpopular industry. Under the New York law, fossil fuel‐​producing energy companies would be taxed billions of dollars retroactively for engaging in legal and necessary behavior. For example, the seventy‐​year retroactive tax would conceivably apply to any company—going back to 1954—that used fossil fuels to generate electricity or produced fuel for New York drivers.

The typical “economic efficiency” arguments for taxing an externality go out the window with the New York and Vermont approach, for at least two reasons. First, the goal of a blackboard or textbook approach to a carbon tax is to internalize the GHG externality. To apply such a tax accurately, the government would need to calculate the social cost of carbon (SCC).

Unfortunately, estimating the SCC is methodologically complex and open to wide ranges of estimates. As a result, the SCC is theoretically very useful but practically impossible to calculate with any reasonable degree of precision.

Second, the retroactive nature of these climate superfunds undermines the very incentives a textbook tax on externalities  would promote. A carbon tax’s central feature is that it is intended to reduce externalities from current and future activity by changing incentives. However, by imposing retroactive taxes, the New York and Vermont legislation will not impact emitters’ future behavior in a way that mimics a textbook carbon tax or improves economic outcomes.

Arbitrary and retroactive taxes can, however, raise prices for consumers by increasing policy uncertainty, affecting firm profitability, and reducing investment (or causing investors to flee GHG‐​emitting industries in the state altogether). Residents in both New York and Vermont already pay over 30 percent more than the US average in residential electricity prices, and this legislation will not lower these costs to consumers.

Climate superfunds are not a serious attempt to solve environmental challenges but rather a way to raise government revenue while unfairly punishing an entire industry (one whose actions the New York legislation claims “have been unconscionable, closely reflecting the strategy of denial, deflection, and delay used by the tobacco industry”).

Fossil fuel companies enabled GHG emissions, of course, but they also empowered significant growth, mobility, and prosperity. The punitive nature of the policy is laid bare by the fact that neither New York nor Vermont used a generic SCC or an evidentiary proceeding to calculate precise damages.

Finally, establishing a standard in which “no finding of wrongdoing is required” to levy fines against historical actions that were (and still are) legally permitted sets a dangerous precedent for what governments can do, not only to businesses that have produced fossil fuels but also to individuals who have consumed them.

Cato research associate Joshua Loucks contributed to this post.

Originally published by the Cato Institute. Republished with permission under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Continue Reading

Trending

X