Being born and raised from Midland, Michigan, my ears perked up when I heard my hometown city, which I'm often very proud of, was making the news:
http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2015/03/midland_lawmaker_planet_fitnes.html
The news all started from a local Planet Fitness in Midland. There, a transgender woman (who was born a man, but now identifies as a woman) was using the female facilities in the locker room. Another female customer walked into the locker room and saw the individual, and complained to Planet Fitness that there was a man in the woman's locker room. The employee told the woman that the individual identified as a woman and that there was no problem. The complaining woman was not satisfied:
"After taking her complaints to Planet Fitness' corporate office and returning to the Midland location to tell other women in the locker room about her experience, she was told by the company that she was violating its "no judgement" policy. After she refused to drop the issue, her membership was canceled."
Hooray Midland! While often right leaning, white, and strictly Christian, it appeared that the city was turning a new leaf towards progressive equality.
However, that's not the end of the story.
A state representative from Midland weighed in on the decision:
"State Rep. Gary Glenn, R-Larkin Township, called the company's stance an "in-your-face policy" that threatens the safety of its female customers.
"Planet Fitness obviously should rethink its anti-woman, anti-reality policy," Glenn said. "If they don't, they shouldn't be surprised in a conservative family-friendly community such as Midland if they lose more female members.""
The elected official called the policy "anti-woman, anti-reality"! How can it possible be anti-woman, when its protected someone who identifies as a woman? Are other women in danger when a transgender person is in their locker room? And how is the policy anti reality? Is he claiming that in reality transgender people do not exist? What planet is he coming from? And how was he elected? The debated waged on as the representative continued his anti equality statements:
""My wife has been a member at the Planet Fitness in Midland," Glenn said. "As she characterized the situation, Planet Fitness has made clear it does not offer a family friendly environment, and she said she will not be going back, and I imagine they'll lose other customers as well.""
How is planet fitness not providing a family friendly environment? Why is this an issue that will lose the company business? The elected official was also quoted in saying that the companies policy "violates the privacy, comfort and peace of mind of women."
Luckily, Planet Fitness stuck with their beliefs and even the corporate office reiterated what the local branch said, supporting their decision.
This case brings up a number of issues, and can be looked at from a number of perspectives. The lawmakers, as an elected official, is the voice of his district. His job is to spread the ideology of those who elected him. Is Planet Fitness in the minority of their opinion, or are they in the majority? Is the elected official meeting his requirements by voicing the honest opinions of his district? Power and ideology are at play in a number of instances here. While the story is still developing, I hope to see how Midland weighs in on this issue. I also appreciated the reporting of Mlive as to not appear biased one way or the other. They presented both sides equally and seemed fair in their reporting of the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment