Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

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.

Business

Scott Bessent says U.S., Ukraine “ready to sign” rare earths deal

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

During Wednesday’s Cabinet meeting, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the U.S. is prepared to move forward with a minerals agreement with Ukraine. President Trump has framed the deal as a way to recover U.S. aid and establish an American presence to deter Russian threats.

Key Details:

  • Bessent confirmed during a Cabinet meeting that the U.S. is “ready to sign this afternoon,” even as Ukrainian officials introduced last-minute changes to the agreement. “We’re sure that they will reconsider that,” he added during the Cabinet discussion.

  • Ukrainian Economy Minister Yulia Svyrydenko was reportedly in Washington on Wednesday to iron out remaining details with American officials.

  • The deal is expected to outline a rare earth mineral partnership between Washington and Kyiv, with Ukrainian Armed Forces Lt. Denis Yaroslavsky calling it a potential turning point: “The minerals deal is the first step. Ukraine should sign it on an equal basis. Russia is afraid of this deal.”

Diving Deeper:

The United States is poised to sign a long-anticipated rare earth minerals agreement with Ukraine, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced  during a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday. According to Bessent, Ukrainians introduced “last minute changes” late Tuesday night, complicating the final phase of negotiations. Still, he emphasized the U.S. remains prepared to move forward: “We’re sure that they will reconsider that, and we are ready to sign this afternoon.”

As first reported by Ukrainian media and confirmed by multiple Ukrainian officials, Economy Minister Yulia Svyrydenko is in Washington this week for the final stages of negotiations. “We are finalizing the last details with our American colleagues,” Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal told Telemarathon.

The deal follows months of complex talks that nearly collapsed earlier this year. In February, President Trump dispatched top officials, including Bessent, to meet with President Volodymyr Zelensky in Ukraine to hammer out terms. According to officials familiar with the matter, Trump grew frustrated when Kyiv initially refused U.S. conditions. Still, the two sides ultimately reached what Bessent described as an “improved” version of the deal by late February.

The effort nearly fell apart again during Zelensky’s February 28th visit to the White House, where a heated Oval Office exchange between the Ukrainian president, Trump, and Vice President JD Vance led to Zelensky being removed from the building and the deal left unsigned.

Despite those setbacks, the deal appears to be back on track. While no public text of the agreement has been released, the framework is expected to center on U.S.-Ukraine cooperation in extracting rare earth minerals—resources vital to modern manufacturing, electronics, and defense technologies.

President Trump has publicly defended the arrangement as a strategic and financial win for the United States. “We want something for our efforts beyond what you would think would be acceptable, and we said, ‘rare earth, they’re very good,’” he said during the Cabinet meeting. “It’s also good for them, because you’ll have an American presence at the site and the American presence will keep a lot of bad actors out of the country—or certainly out of the area where we’re doing the digging.”

Trump has emphasized that the deal would serve as a form of “security guarantee” for Ukraine, providing a stabilizing American footprint amid ongoing Russian aggression. He framed it as a tangible return on the billions in U.S. aid sent to Kyiv since the start of Russia’s 2022 invasion.

Continue Reading

Business

New federal government plans to run larger deficits and borrow more money than predecessor’s plan

Published on

Fr0m the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

The only difference, despite all the rhetoric regarding change and Prime Minister Carney’s criticism of the Trudeau government’s fiscal approach, is that the Carney government plans to run larger deficits and borrow more money.

As part of his successful election campaign, Prime Minister Mark Carney promised a “very different approach” to fiscal policy than that of the Trudeau government. But when you peel back the rhetoric and look at his plan for deficits and debt, things begin to look eerily similar—if not worse.

The Carney government’s “responsible” new approach is centered around the idea of “spending less” in order to “invest more.” The government plans to separate spending into two budgets: the operating budget (which appears to include bureaucrat salaries, cash transfers and benefits) and the capital budget (which includes any spending that “builds an asset”). The government plans to balance the operating budget by 2028/29 (meaning operating spending will be fully covered by revenues) while funding the capital budget through borrowing.

Aside from the fact that this clearly complicates federal finances, this “very different” approach to spending actually represents more of the same by continuing to pursue endless borrowing and a larger role for the government in the economy.

The chart below compares projected annual federal budget balances for the next four years, from both the 2024 Fall Economic Statement (FES)—the Trudeau government’s last fiscal update—and the 2025 Liberal Party platform. Importantly, deficits from the 2025 platform show the overall budget balance including both operating and capital spending.

Let’s start with the similarities.

In its final fiscal update last fall, the Trudeau government planned to borrow tens of billions of dollars each year to fund annual spending, with no end in sight. Based on its election platform, the Carney government also plans to run multi-billion-dollar deficits each year with no plan to balance the overall budget. The only difference, despite all the rhetoric regarding change and Prime Minister Carney’s criticism of the Trudeau government’s fiscal approach, is that the Carney government plans to run larger deficits and borrow more money.

In the current fiscal year (2025/26) the Trudeau government had planned to run a $42.2 billion deficit. The Carney government now plans to increase that deficit to $62.3 billion. Trudeau’s most recent fiscal plan forecasted annual deficits from 2025/26 to 2028/29 representing a cumulative $131.4 billion in federal government borrowing. Over that same period, the Carney government now plans to borrow a cumulative $224.8 billion.

The Carney government’s fiscal plan does include a number of tax changes that are expected to lower revenues in years to come—including (but not limited to) a personal income tax cut, the elimination of the GST for some first-time homebuyers, and the cancelling of the planned capital gains tax hike. But even if you exclude these factors from the overall budget, the Carney government still plans to borrow $52.9 billion more than the Trudeau government had planned over the next four years.

By continuing (if not worsening) this same approach of endless borrowing and rising debt, the Carney government will impose real costs on Canadians. Indeed, 16-year-olds can already expect to pay an additional $29,663 in personal income taxes over their lifetime as a result of debt accumulation under the previous federal government, before accounting for the promised increases.

One of the key promises made by Prime Minister Carney is that his government will take a different approach to fiscal policy than his predecessor. While we won’t know for certain until the new government releases its first budget, it appears this approach will continue the same costly habits of endless borrowing and rising debt.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

 

Continue Reading

Trending

X