Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 139

Thread: Canada's 1st LGBTQ-Only Gym

  1. #1
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,150

    Default Canada's 1st LGBTQ-Only Gym

    It's great that this something available in Edmonton now!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/12...ym_a_23303566/

    "There's this culture in a lot of traditional gym environments that's very aggressive and doesn't feel like a safe space for a lot of queer people," Fairall, who identifies as non-binary and uses they/them pronouns, told HuffPost Canada.


    Queerflex is a non-profit gym in a volunteered space that offers its services on a sliding pay-scale, since finances are another barrier often faced by the LGBTQ community, Fairall said.

  2. #2
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,282

    Default

    Does anyone feel comfortable in a gym filled with meat heads?
    There is a whole youtube series making fun of it https://www.youtube.com/user/BroScienceLife

  3. #3

    Default

    ... is this legal?

    Isnt segregation by sexual orientation illegal?

  4. #4
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S3RI3S View Post
    ... is this legal?

    Isnt segregation by sexual orientation illegal?
    my understanding is that this would be legal (and my opinion is that it should be legal). this relates to the voluntary association of a small and specific group of people while the act is intended to prevent discrimination in areas that are “customarily available to the public” which this gym is clearly not intended to provide.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  5. #5

    Default

    Happy this place exists for those who need it but how can the gym deny a non lgbtq person from working out there? If a regular gym did this to a gay person it would be sued to oblivion.

    The double standard is ridiculous.

  6. #6
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Happy this place exists for those who need it but how can the gym deny a non lgbtq person from working out there? If a regular gym did this to a gay person it would be sued to oblivion.

    The double standard is ridiculous.
    what double standard? if you have a private trainer come to your house or you book time with a private trainer in their facility, i’m not entitled to come and participate just because i want to, nor should i be. and i’m not likely to be too successful trying to sue you or your trainer to oblivion as a result, nor should i be. this isn’t a “regular gym”.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by S3RI3S View Post
    ... is this legal?

    Isnt segregation by sexual orientation illegal?
    my understanding is that this would be legal (and my opinion is that it should be legal). this relates to the voluntary association of a small and specific group of people while the act is intended to prevent discrimination in areas that are “customarily available to the public” which this gym is clearly not intended to provide.
    So people avoid discrimination by segregating themselves? Seems weird.

    "To the ppl so worried about QUEERFLEX being only for lgbtq+:
    When all lgbtq+ folks feel safe in all gym spaces I’ll be more than happy to train non-queer folk... if you’re so concerned about this then get busy changing gym culture!
    God knows we could use more allies "

    Idk man. I don't like the idea that people are excluded based on sexual orientation, or other things like gender, or the other things ecompassed by lgbtq+. Logically, the idea that this space is only for lgbtq+ people seems pretty discriminatory.
    "Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible." - Dalai Lama

  8. #8

    Default

    ...and back to toilets, locker-rooms, etc. Mens Womens segregation.



    This is a poor and likely very biased source but of course the Sun article link doesn’t work.

    City of Edmonton launches sharia compliant women-only swimming | Creeping Sharia

    https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com...only-swimming/
    Last edited by KC; 31-12-2017 at 07:31 AM.

  9. #9

    Default

    ^I think it’s fine re the swimming pool - but do they allow all people in who identify themselves as female gender but who are biologically male? If they do, it’s not sharia compliant anymore. If they don’t, it’s supposedly a human rights issue. The harsh reality is that religious tolerance and gender tolerance aren’t compatible, sometimes you have to pick and choose which minority group you want to pander to.
    Last edited by moahunter; 31-12-2017 at 08:23 AM.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Happy this place exists for those who need it but how can the gym deny a non lgbtq person from working out there? If a regular gym did this to a gay person it would be sued to oblivion.

    The double standard is ridiculous.
    what double standard? if you have a private trainer come to your house or you book time with a private trainer in their facility, i’m not entitled to come and participate just because i want to, nor should i be. and i’m not likely to be too successful trying to sue you or your trainer to oblivion as a result, nor should i be. this isn’t a “regular gym”.
    At the end of the article it stated queer flex doesnt offer its services to anyone other then lgbtq community. You must be gay to receive their services.

    Imagine an organization or business saying no gays welcome. This is the double standard.

    If i was a trainer specifically denying services to the lgbtq community how do you think this would be handled?

  11. #11
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Happy this place exists for those who need it but how can the gym deny a non lgbtq person from working out there? If a regular gym did this to a gay person it would be sued to oblivion.

    The double standard is ridiculous.
    what double standard? if you have a private trainer come to your house or you book time with a private trainer in their facility, i’m not entitled to come and participate just because i want to, nor should i be. and i’m not likely to be too successful trying to sue you or your trainer to oblivion as a result, nor should i be. this isn’t a “regular gym”.
    At the end of the article it stated queer flex doesnt offer its services to anyone other then lgbtq community. You must be gay to receive their services.

    Imagine an organization or business saying no gays welcome. This is the double standard.

    If i was a trainer specifically denying services to the lgbtq community how do you think this would be handled?
    the provisions/intent of the alberta human rights act are summarized as follows:

    The purpose of the Alberta Human Rights Act(the Act) is to provide Albertans with protection of their human rights. The Alberta Human Rights Commission administers the Act. The Act allows people to make a complaint to the Commission if they feel that they have experienced harassment or have been discriminated against in the specific areas and under the specific grounds protected under the Act. The aim of the Commission's complaint resolution process is to return the complainant to the position he or she would have been in if the discrimination or harassment had not occurred.

    Protected areas

    The Act prohibits discrimination in the following areas:

    • statements, publications, notices, signs, symbols, emblems or other representations that are published, issued or displayed before the public
    • goods, services, accommodation or facilities customarily available to the public
    • tenancy
    • employment practices
    • employment applications or advertisements
    • membership in trade unions, employers' organizations or occupational association


    in addition to the previously posted/above limitation to “customarily available to the public”, the act itself further specifically allows for exceptions as follows:

    Reasonable and justifiable contravention

    11 A contravention of this Act shall be deemed not to have occurred if the person who is alleged to have contravened the Act shows that the alleged contravention was reasonable and justifiable in the circumstances.

    it’s pretty hard not to do anything but wish this venture well under the circumstances...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  12. #12

    Default

    So how many bathrooms would there be in this club, how many sex distinctions made on that basis, how many members and how do they assess membership.

    or is the bathroom situation considered unisex.

    Really would have no idea what the arrangements would be.

    Next, if somebody stated they were straight, and were refused admission wouldn't that be hypocritical?

    Or is this furthering acceptance and live and let live through enforced segregation? As mentioned that is alltime weird.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  13. #13
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,842

    Default

    Next, if somebody stated they were straight, and were refused admission wouldn't that be hypocritical?
    Of course it would be, but special interest groups( and I'm all for gay rights) have cornered the market now..

  14. #14

    Default

    the article specifically states they will deny anyone services who are not lgbtq.

    Ken didnt answer my question when I asked how this would play out if any other business mentioned they would refuse any services for the lgbtq community.

    I find it rather amusing

  15. #15
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    the article specifically states they will deny anyone services who are not lgbtq.

    Ken didnt answer my question when I asked how this would play out if any other business mentioned they would refuse any services for the lgbtq community.

    I find it rather amusing
    i’m pretty sure i answered your question and both referred to and quoted the intent and sections of the alberta human rights act that supported the answer. if it was a business “customarily available to the public” then services cannot be refused.

    it’s my understanding that this service is within its rights to offer its services solely to the lgbtq community and “the public” would have a pretty hard time saying it’s a service customarily available to the public.

    as for how it would play out for any other business, it’s no different than the local curves fitness franchise only being open to women.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  16. #16

    Default

    So what other precedents then, are there, of business cases that only allow a select group of clients and prohibit any and all others.

    Ladies fitness clubs, yes, any others?

    Aren't service businesses by nature "customarily available to the public"?

    That said its entirely amusing. lets prevent bigotry by self imposed segregation. Seems pretty counter productive if at least non-intuitive.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  17. #17

    Default

    1985
    Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- Does It Bind Private Persons
    Brian Sla ery
    Osgoode Hall Law School of York University

    http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku....cholarly_works
    Last edited by KC; 01-01-2018 at 09:38 PM.

  18. #18
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    So what other precedents then, are there, of business cases that only allow a select group of clients and prohibit any and all others.

    Ladies fitness clubs, yes, any others?

    Aren't service businesses by nature "customarily available to the public"?

    That said its entirely amusing. lets prevent bigotry by self imposed segregation. Seems pretty counter productive if at least non-intuitive.
    i would hazard a guess you might have a hard time getting an appointment with a gynaecologist whether or not that gynaecologist is male, female or lgbtq.

    you might have a hard time checking in to lois hole hospital.

    you might have a hard time enrolling in brescia university.

    you might have a hard time rushing a sorority if you went back to the u of a.

    if you were younger you might have a hard time joining girl guides or brownies.

    you might have a hard time being accepted into rbc’s womens entrepreneurs program.

    you might have a hard time being accepted into alberta’s ready for her program to encourage and support women to run for public office.

    this is a pretty small, focused, boutique offering catering to a small underserviced target market by a member of that community. i find it hard to understand the distress it seems to have caused here and the amusement you seem to find in the very existence of that market and the niche/need it fulfills.
    Last edited by kcantor; 02-01-2018 at 07:19 AM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  19. #19
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,166

    Default

    For those of you complaining about reverse discrimination, remember that most of us can go to almost any other workout facility without being judged by staff and other clients for our gender or however you've choose to define it. We won't suffer from awkward, embarrassing or threatening situations in the locker room for not being 100% he or 100% she. Do you really think the average jock meathead at a typical World Health Club or YMCA can comprehend or tolerate today's gender issues? Maybe you folks should try reading the article more closely.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    For those of you complaining about reverse discrimination, remember that most of us can go to almost any other workout facility without being judged by staff and other clients for our gender or however you've choose to define it. We won't suffer from awkward, embarrassing or threatening situations in the locker room for not being 100% he or 100% she. Do you really think the average jock meathead at a typical World Health Club or YMCA can comprehend or tolerate today's gender issues? Maybe you folks should try reading the article more closely.
    What’s your point? That discrimination is ok - depending on who is doing it?

  21. #21
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    For those of you complaining about reverse discrimination, remember that most of us can go to almost any other workout facility without being judged by staff and other clients for our gender or however you've choose to define it. We won't suffer from awkward, embarrassing or threatening situations in the locker room for not being 100% he or 100% she. Do you really think the average jock meathead at a typical World Health Club or YMCA can comprehend or tolerate today's gender issues? Maybe you folks should try reading the article more closely.
    What’s your point? That discrimination is ok - depending on who is doing it?
    i can’t speak for sdm but i think the point isn’t that discrimination is ok but that self segregation is sometimes acceptable and that those are two different things.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  22. #22
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    For those of you complaining about reverse discrimination, remember that most of us can go to almost any other workout facility without being judged by staff and other clients for our gender or however you've choose to define it. We won't suffer from awkward, embarrassing or threatening situations in the locker room for not being 100% he or 100% she. Do you really think the average jock meathead at a typical World Health Club or YMCA can comprehend or tolerate today's gender issues? Maybe you folks should try reading the article more closely.
    What’s your point? That discrimination is ok - depending on who is doing it?
    I wouldn't say that it depends on "who is doing it", but yes, there are cases where discrimination is acceptable and even the better solution. For example, minority refugees fleeing ethnic cleansing. By definition if you're singling out Rohingya (or a couple years ago the Yazidi's in Iraq) for resettlement and the like, that's discrimination. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing in that specific circumstance.

    So yes, in this particular case, there is discrimination and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    So what other precedents then, are there, of business cases that only allow a select group of clients and prohibit any and all others.

    Ladies fitness clubs, yes, any others?

    Aren't service businesses by nature "customarily available to the public"?

    That said its entirely amusing. lets prevent bigotry by self imposed segregation. Seems pretty counter productive if at least non-intuitive.
    i would hazard a guess you might have a hard time getting an appointment with a gynaecologist whether or not that gynaecologist is male, female or lgbtq.

    you might have a hard time checking in to lois hole hospital.

    you might have a hard time enrolling in brescia university.

    you might have a hard time rushing a sorority if you went back to the u of a.

    if you were younger you might have a hard time joining girl guides or brownies.

    you might have a hard time being accepted into rbc’s womens entrepreneurs program.

    you might have a hard time being accepted into alberta’s ready for her program to encourage and support women to run for public office.

    this is a pretty small, focused, boutique offering catering to a small underserviced target market by a member of that community. i find it hard to understand the distress it seems to have caused here and the amusement you seem to find in the very existence of that market and the niche/need it fulfills.
    Well I think theres a difference between select gynecology and the like that specifically services parts of human anatomy that a particular sex has, or doesn't have vs a decision to select, to choose, segregation. Selecting segregation furthers division. That's what people are challenging about such choices. Why would one select further divisiveness. Seems odd as several here are mentioning.

    The others listed are largely vestiges of girls and boys should be separated into cookies and scouts lines of thinking. Deplorable enough in itself. Do they still have brownies and cubs and this errant kind of sexual segregation? Those are borne of times where girls and boys were separated in schools entirely with different entrances, classes etc.
    Last edited by Replacement; 02-01-2018 at 01:02 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  24. #24
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    I think that if traditional gyms in Edmonton were welcoming to LGBTQ people, they wouldn't have the need for a facility catering exclusively to LGBTQ people. But when the article says things like:

    Male and female change rooms, gendered intake forms, and a focus on physical appearance are just a few of the barriers that can prevent LGBTQ people from fully, comfortably, and safely accessing traditional fitness facilities.
    and
    "I've had other gym members verbally attack me and I've had instances where I've gone and reported this to management... and not only did they not know what to do to support me, but their answer was to just go work out in the women's centre, assuming that I was a woman."
    then there is already discrimination of LGBTQ people going on.

    I'm certain that LGBTQ people don't want to have to segregate themselves off, but until facilities and staff are welcoming and trained properly, they've found a way to deal with it in a way in which they have control.

  25. #25
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    So what other precedents then, are there, of business cases that only allow a select group of clients and prohibit any and all others.

    Ladies fitness clubs, yes, any others?

    Aren't service businesses by nature "customarily available to the public"?

    That said its entirely amusing. lets prevent bigotry by self imposed segregation. Seems pretty counter productive if at least non-intuitive.
    i would hazard a guess you might have a hard time getting an appointment with a gynaecologist whether or not that gynaecologist is male, female or lgbtq.

    you might have a hard time checking in to lois hole hospital.

    you might have a hard time enrolling in brescia university.

    you might have a hard time rushing a sorority if you went back to the u of a.

    if you were younger you might have a hard time joining girl guides or brownies.

    you might have a hard time being accepted into rbc’s womens entrepreneurs program.

    you might have a hard time being accepted into alberta’s ready for her program to encourage and support women to run for public office.

    this is a pretty small, focused, boutique offering catering to a small underserviced target market by a member of that community. i find it hard to understand the distress it seems to have caused here and the amusement you seem to find in the very existence of that market and the niche/need it fulfills.
    Well I think theres a difference between select gynecology and the like that specifically services parts of human anatomy that a particular sex has, or doesn't have vs a decision to select, to choose, segregation. Selecting segregation furthers division. That's what people are challenging about such choices. Why would one select further divisiveness. Seems odd as several here are mentioning.

    The others listed are largely vestiges of girls and boys should be separated into cookies and scouts lines of thinking. Deplorable enough in itself. Do they still have brownies and cubs and this errant kind of sexual segregation? Those are borne of times where girls and boys were separated in schools entirely with different entrances, classes etc.
    well you are the one who asked for "precedents other than health clubs" weren't you?

    and i find it interesting that you focused on the 2 of the 7 that were based on biological differences as the ones to take exception to when the main theme of the discussion here is in fact based on biological differences (unless you want to try and convince me that sexual orientation is by choice and not biological?).

    once again, it looks like the best we are going to be able to manage is to agree to disagree, particularly when you seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between broadly enforced segregation/discrimination and individual/small scale self-segregation after you seem not to have an issue with broad-based gender oriented segregation practiced by universities and by service clubs both young and old.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    So what other precedents then, are there, of business cases that only allow a select group of clients and prohibit any and all others.

    Ladies fitness clubs, yes, any others?

    Aren't service businesses by nature "customarily available to the public"?

    That said its entirely amusing. lets prevent bigotry by self imposed segregation. Seems pretty counter productive if at least non-intuitive.
    i would hazard a guess you might have a hard time getting an appointment with a gynaecologist whether or not that gynaecologist is male, female or lgbtq.

    you might have a hard time checking in to lois hole hospital.

    you might have a hard time enrolling in brescia university.

    you might have a hard time rushing a sorority if you went back to the u of a.

    if you were younger you might have a hard time joining girl guides or brownies.

    you might have a hard time being accepted into rbc’s womens entrepreneurs program.

    you might have a hard time being accepted into alberta’s ready for her program to encourage and support women to run for public office.

    this is a pretty small, focused, boutique offering catering to a small underserviced target market by a member of that community. i find it hard to understand the distress it seems to have caused here and the amusement you seem to find in the very existence of that market and the niche/need it fulfills.
    Well I think theres a difference between select gynecology and the like that specifically services parts of human anatomy that a particular sex has, or doesn't have vs a decision to select, to choose, segregation. Selecting segregation furthers division. That's what people are challenging about such choices. Why would one select further divisiveness. Seems odd as several here are mentioning.

    The others listed are largely vestiges of girls and boys should be separated into cookies and scouts lines of thinking. Deplorable enough in itself. Do they still have brownies and cubs and this errant kind of sexual segregation? Those are borne of times where girls and boys were separated in schools entirely with different entrances, classes etc.
    well you are the one who asked for "precedents other than health clubs" weren't you?

    and i find it interesting that you focused on the 2 of the 7 that were based on biological differences as the ones to take exception to when the main theme of the discussion here is in fact based on biological differences (unless you want to try and convince me that sexual orientation is by choice and not biological?).

    once again, it looks like the best we are going to be able to manage is to agree to disagree, particularly when you seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between broadly enforced segregation/discrimination and individual/small scale self-segregation after you seem not to have an issue with broad-based gender oriented segregation practiced by universities and by service clubs both young and old.
    How does it seem I don't have issue with segregated universities or service clubs? Just because I didn't respond to every bullet point on your list doesn't mean I'm accepting of them. I don't see too much of a need for any of them.

    This exchange is you, for some reason, reading what you want, into the exchange. If you have specific questions of my position that you are unclear on then simply ask instead of assuming something unstated.

    But finally, using the washrooms at fitness facilities either to change, shower, get washed up is a choice, for all. Some use those facilities, some (many) do not. In the WHC I've gone to for decades around 25% of people only walk into the washrooms at all to use the bathroom and they even have lockers in the hallway as well. Another large proportion don't use the showers and a lot of people prefer not to either due to concerns about foot fungi, athletes foot, other possible transmitted issues in showers saunas etc. A large proportion of people come into a club with workout gear on and leave the same way. This would be a choice for anybody that prefers not to experience any possible reaction or issue.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    I think that if traditional gyms in Edmonton were welcoming to LGBTQ people, they wouldn't have the need for a facility catering exclusively to LGBTQ people. But when the article says things like:

    Male and female change rooms, gendered intake forms, and a focus on physical appearance are just a few of the barriers that can prevent LGBTQ people from fully, comfortably, and safely accessing traditional fitness facilities.
    and
    "I've had other gym members verbally attack me and I've had instances where I've gone and reported this to management... and not only did they not know what to do to support me, but their answer was to just go work out in the women's centre, assuming that I was a woman."
    then there is already discrimination of LGBTQ people going on.

    I'm certain that LGBTQ people don't want to have to segregate themselves off, but until facilities and staff are welcoming and trained properly, they've found a way to deal with it in a way in which they have control.
    Would be interesting to see citations for that and where it took place etc. That said gyms can be ridiculously stupid places when it comes to thing like attire and theres been several national well publicized incidents involving women wearing pretty standard attire that were basically told to change or leave. For some reason, admittedly, some gyms have been pretty backwards and intolerant places albeit I don't know that all are.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  28. #28
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    I think that if traditional gyms in Edmonton were welcoming to LGBTQ people, they wouldn't have the need for a facility catering exclusively to LGBTQ people. But when the article says things like:

    Male and female change rooms, gendered intake forms, and a focus on physical appearance are just a few of the barriers that can prevent LGBTQ people from fully, comfortably, and safely accessing traditional fitness facilities.
    and
    "I've had other gym members verbally attack me and I've had instances where I've gone and reported this to management... and not only did they not know what to do to support me, but their answer was to just go work out in the women's centre, assuming that I was a woman."
    then there is already discrimination of LGBTQ people going on.

    I'm certain that LGBTQ people don't want to have to segregate themselves off, but until facilities and staff are welcoming and trained properly, they've found a way to deal with it in a way in which they have control.
    Would be interesting to see citations for that and where it took place etc. That said gyms can be ridiculously stupid places when it comes to thing like attire and theres been several national well publicized incidents involving women wearing pretty standard attire that were basically told to change or leave. For some reason, admittedly, some gyms have been pretty backwards and intolerant places albeit I don't know that all are.
    Are you suggesting someone actually call out the place on social media?

    Your followup suggests you agree that traditional gyms are problematic, but not ALL of them. How does a person know?

    But finally, using the washrooms at fitness facilities either to change, shower, get washed up is a choice, for all. Some use those facilities, some (many) do not. In the WHC I've gone to for decades around 25% of people only walk into the washrooms at all to use the bathroom and they even have lockers in the hallway as well. Another large proportion don't use the showers and a lot of people prefer not to either due to concerns about foot fungi, athletes foot, other possible transmitted issues in showers saunas etc. A large proportion of people come into a club with workout gear on and leave the same way. This would be a choice for anybody that prefers not to experience any possible reaction or issue.
    You think this is an honest solution? The washroom and change facilities can be an important part of going to the gym (especially in this weather), and you're ignoring all the other parts of the issues at the gyms.
    Last edited by Channing; 02-01-2018 at 09:51 PM.

  29. #29
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,299

    Default

    Replacement clearly doesn’t get it. Thankfully Ken and a few others do. I dare Replacement to pursue his ideas on social media or to take it to court. It would be a little funny to see how swiftly he gets his *** kicked in both.

  30. #30

    Default

    ^someone is angry.

    Are you going to start threatening posters here this time?

    just wondering
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  31. #31
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ^someone is angry.

    Are you going to start threatening posters here this time?

    just wondering
    i would guess frustrated maybe more than angry...

    maybe i’ll take one more stab at a comparable for you.

    let’s say the trainer here was a double amputee ptsd survivor who was offering gym trading for other amputees.

    let’s say the trainer was the survivor of a fire with substantial face and body scarring who was offering gym training for other fire victims.

    let’s say the trainer suffered from scoliosis or muscular dystrophy and was offering gym training for those similarly afflicted or disadvantaged.

    would you be flying the same discrimination/segregation/human rights flag insisting that those individuals need to open their classes to the general public or take them them to the neighbourhood world health club?
    Last edited by kcantor; 03-01-2018 at 07:39 AM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Happy this place exists for those who need it but how can the gym deny a non lgbtq person from working out there? If a regular gym did this to a gay person it would be sued to oblivion.

    The double standard is ridiculous.
    Its an interesting academic point - yeah, if you banned homosexuals (is that word PC nowdays?) from a gym, it probably would be considered illegal. Is this gym really banning anyone though? I don't think so, I don't think they do a test when you go in to see if you are gay enough. An equivalent might be if you set up a gym aimed at hook ups for straight single people. I don't think that would be discrimination against non straight or single people, its more of a club aimed at like minded people. I don't see how this gym is any different from a gay nightclub / bar, or from a womens only gym (I have always wondered though how accommodating those are to trans sex people, someday a big controversy will break out where a guy who says he feels he is a women tries to get a membership, but the women are offended by an erect penis in the change room).
    Last edited by moahunter; 03-01-2018 at 07:54 AM.

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    (I have always wondered though how accommodating those are to trans sex people, someday a big controversy will break out where a guy who says he feels he is a women tries to get a membership, but the women are offended by an erect penis in the change room).
    And here's a great example of moahunter projecting his own moral bankruptcy & sociopathic depravity on other people.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Happy this place exists for those who need it but how can the gym deny a non lgbtq person from working out there? If a regular gym did this to a gay person it would be sued to oblivion.

    The double standard is ridiculous.
    Its an interesting academic point - yeah, if you banned homosexuals (is that word PC nowdays?) from a gym, it probably would be considered illegal. Is this gym really banning anyone though? I don't think so, I don't think they do a test when you go in to see if you are gay enough. An equivalent might be if you set up a gym aimed at hook ups for straight single people. I don't think that would be discrimination against non straight or single people, its more of a club aimed at like minded people. I don't see how this gym is any different from a gay nightclub / bar, or from a womens only gym (I have always wondered though how accommodating those are to trans sex people, someday a big controversy will break out where a guy who says he feels he is a women tries to get a membership, but the women are offended by an erect penis in the change room).
    (Highlighted by me)

    That's a strange thing to say. Just because a person is LGBTQ does not mean they don't have any class. I'm sure a person in that situation would cover themselves or turn away rather than let others see that. LGBTQ have morals just like everyone else and a hetrosexual male in their right mind would not flaunt that in a changing room so why would a trans sex person.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  35. #35

    Default

    ^I didn't say otherwise, of course most people would not do that, but it only takes one creep to falsely pretend they are transgender and do this. Like it or not, I don't think most women want to see another person's penis in a shared bathroom / shower (which is what these gyms mostly have), whether it is erect or not, and regardless of the supposed gender of the person. Now channing will probably tell you that all women's gyms should have private showers so that this isn't an issue - I don't think that's the point of these establishments though - most of them have hot tubs and similar where women can relax and not worry about men seeing them.
    Last edited by moahunter; 03-01-2018 at 10:23 AM.

  36. #36

    Default

    ^Unfortunately there are creeps everywhere in all walks of life so by the law of averages there could be one or two in a LGBTQ locker room. They will deal with it like the rest of society.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  37. #37

    Default

    I thought it was snowman weather this week in Alberta, but here's moahunter building a strawman.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ^someone is angry.

    Are you going to start threatening posters here this time?

    just wondering
    i would guess frustrated maybe more than angry...

    maybe i’ll take one more stab at a comparable for you.

    let’s say the trainer here was a double amputee ptsd survivor who was offering gym trading for other amputees.

    let’s say the trainer was the survivor of a fire with substantial face and body scarring who was offering gym training for other fire victims.

    let’s say the trainer suffered from scoliosis or muscular dystrophy and was offering gym training for those similarly afflicted or disadvantaged.

    would you be flying the same discrimination/segregation/human rights flag insisting that those individuals need to open their classes to the general public or take them them to the neighbourhood world health club?
    Wouldn't those services be specifically geared to providing services to people that had suffered injuries, had physical limitations, and were going to rehab using catered, designed equipment in a facility that knew their physical limitations and challenges?

    I don't think those are good examples of what you're trying to say. No, I do not think that LGBTQ are physically or mentally challenged or have those limitations. Why are you using a disabled context of examples?

    So I'm more confused than ever at what you are trying to state.

    Even a bit more confused that you are singling me out in the exchange and supporting a poster that just made clearly threatening innuendo and from a poster that HAS physically threatened people here before.

    I mean if we're running a civil board here one would think that would be addressed.
    Last edited by Replacement; 03-01-2018 at 11:47 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Even a bit more confused that you are singling me out in the exchange and supporting a poster that just made clearly threatening innuendo and from a poster that HAS threatened people here before.
    Your ignorance & regressive thinking has absolutely no more place on this forum than threats of violence, however etownboarder was saying you'd get your metaphorical *** kicked in court (the court of public opinion in the case of social media) for trying to plead your outmoded case to a world that's progressed beyond your simplistic, unrealistic view of human sexuality & gender, not that you'd get it literally curbstomped. Playing the victim card here when you're the one voicing intolerant opinions is ludicrous, even for someone as generally out-of-touch as you are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I mean if we're running a civil board here one would think that would be addressed.
    Maybe take a Prentice Pause, look in the mirror & realize how hurtful some of the comments you believe are innocuous truly are to inspire others to react with such vitriol to your rhetoric instead of trying to come across as a martyr.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Even a bit more confused that you are singling me out in the exchange and supporting a poster that just made clearly threatening innuendo and from a poster that HAS threatened people here before.
    Your ignorance & regressive thinking has absolutely no more place on this forum than threats of violence, however etownboarder was saying you'd get your metaphorical *** kicked in court (the court of public opinion in the case of social media) for trying to plead your outmoded case to a world that's progressed beyond your simplistic, unrealistic view of human sexuality & gender, not that you'd get it literally curbstomped. Playing the victim card here when you're the one voicing intolerant opinions is ludicrous, even for someone as generally out-of-touch as you are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I mean if we're running a civil board here one would think that would be addressed.
    Maybe take a Prentice Pause, look in the mirror & realize how hurtful some of the comments you believe are innocuous truly are to inspire others to react with such vitriol to your rhetoric instead of trying to come across as a martyr.

    Glad to have given you another reason to get on your soapbox and preach at somebody. Its all you ever do. So no, I don't take any of it to heart anymore than if you were ashetson.

    This board is a collective disaster which is actually what you want it to be.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Glad to have given you another reason to get on your soapbox and preach at somebody
    Easiest way to get me to stop is to stop giving me material...
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  42. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    I think that if traditional gyms in Edmonton were welcoming to LGBTQ people, they wouldn't have the need for a facility catering exclusively to LGBTQ people. But when the article says things like:

    Male and female change rooms, gendered intake forms, and a focus on physical appearance are just a few of the barriers that can prevent LGBTQ people from fully, comfortably, and safely accessing traditional fitness facilities.
    and
    "I've had other gym members verbally attack me and I've had instances where I've gone and reported this to management... and not only did they not know what to do to support me, but their answer was to just go work out in the women's centre, assuming that I was a woman."
    then there is already discrimination of LGBTQ people going on.

    I'm certain that LGBTQ people don't want to have to segregate themselves off, but until facilities and staff are welcoming and trained properly, they've found a way to deal with it in a way in which they have control.
    Would be interesting to see citations for that and where it took place etc. That said gyms can be ridiculously stupid places when it comes to thing like attire and theres been several national well publicized incidents involving women wearing pretty standard attire that were basically told to change or leave. For some reason, admittedly, some gyms have been pretty backwards and intolerant places albeit I don't know that all are.
    Are you suggesting someone actually call out the place on social media?

    Your followup suggests you agree that traditional gyms are problematic, but not ALL of them. How does a person know?

    But finally, using the washrooms at fitness facilities either to change, shower, get washed up is a choice, for all. Some use those facilities, some (many) do not. In the WHC I've gone to for decades around 25% of people only walk into the washrooms at all to use the bathroom and they even have lockers in the hallway as well. Another large proportion don't use the showers and a lot of people prefer not to either due to concerns about foot fungi, athletes foot, other possible transmitted issues in showers saunas etc. A large proportion of people come into a club with workout gear on and leave the same way. This would be a choice for anybody that prefers not to experience any possible reaction or issue.
    You think this is an honest solution? The washroom and change facilities can be an important part of going to the gym (especially in this weather), and you're ignoring all the other parts of the issues at the gyms.

    Citations are not "calling out" places on social media, its simply providing the reader with the actual references that you specifically quoted.

    How is the provision I mentioned not a potential or at least plausible solution. Like I stated WHC have lockers available for people to use in the hallway, for people that prefer not utilizing the washroom lockers. The Washrooms also have proper cubicles, the shower stalls have curtains etc.

    Question yes or no. Given the facilities I describe is it possible for a LGBTQ person to use say WHC facilities without detection, ostracism etc?
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Glad to have given you another reason to get on your soapbox and preach at somebody
    Easiest way to get me to stop is to stop giving me material...
    Why would you stop? Its not what you want. Plus if you do stop you just harangue somebody else so I have no difficulty occupying you wasting your time..

    In which case I guess you can decide which "regressives" (translation almost everybody else) you want to waste your time replying to.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Question yes or no. Given the facilities I describe is it possible for a LGBTQ person to use say WHC facilities without detection, ostracism etc?
    That's a solid "maybe", despite your desire for a binary response. That being said, telling them to literally "get in the closet" to avoid harassment & the ire of people in the general public isn't really an appropriate response in the 21st century.

    I'm sure I don't have to explain why...
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  45. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Why would you stop? Its not what you want. Plus if you do stop you just harangue somebody else so I have no difficulty occupying you wasting your time..
    Pointing out your bigoted ignorance is never a waste of time, above & beyond the few minutes of processing time I fritter away posting here during the work day anyways.

    But I'm sure you feel about as responsible for your ignorant ramblings as you do for your speeding & parking tickets (which is not at all), so I am likely "wasting my time", but everyone needs a pointless hobby to bring a little joy into their life & every time I realize I'm fundamentally different from you & your ilk I get a warm glow inside, so I consider it a fair trade.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  46. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Question yes or no. Given the facilities I describe is it possible for a LGBTQ person to use say WHC facilities without detection, ostracism etc?
    That's a solid "maybe", despite your desire for a binary response. That being said, telling them to literally "get in the closet" to avoid harassment & the ire of people in the general public isn't really an appropriate response in the 21st century.

    I'm sure I don't have to explain why...
    Well, I'm sure that's a strawman argument. Everybody that showers uses the same shower stalls. So no, no specific ostracising shower stall or whatever you mean by closet in context of what I posted.

    You're reaching, even by your standards.

    Nor I do I think they should have to avoid harassment. There should be no harassment of LGBTQ. There should be a lot more live and let live.
    Last edited by Replacement; 03-01-2018 at 01:02 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Why would you stop? Its not what you want. Plus if you do stop you just harangue somebody else so I have no difficulty occupying you wasting your time..
    Pointing out your bigoted ignorance is never a waste of time, above & beyond the few minutes of processing time I fritter away posting here during the work day anyways.

    But I'm sure you feel about as responsible for your ignorant ramblings as you do for your speeding & parking tickets (which is not at all), so I am likely "wasting my time", but everyone needs a pointless hobby to bring a little joy into their life & every time I realize I'm fundamentally different from you & your ilk I get a warm glow inside, so I consider it a fair trade.
    The warm glow of cathartic trolling..

    hey whatever gets you off, I'm not judging you
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  48. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    The warm glow of cathartic trolling..
    My legitimate & vociferous repulsion at your ignorance, callousness & bigoted nature isn't "trolling".
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  49. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    The warm glow of cathartic trolling..
    My legitimate & vociferous repulsion at your ignorance, callousness & bigoted nature isn't "trolling".
    Well it isn't good trolling. Its far too obvious.

    But hey, if you think that most of your posts here are not trolling than carry on.

    We both know its what you have selected here by now. Maybe since 2007. Again no judgement in that as its a hopelessly dysfunctional board. But you don't wish it to be any different and you want there to be opportunities here to troll every time you come on the board. This is what you want from the board.

    At least be honest about it.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  50. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    My legitimate & vociferous repulsion at your ignorance, callousness & bigoted nature isn't "trolling".
    Well it isn't good trolling. Its far too obvious.
    I'm not commenting to get a rise out of you, whatsoever. I'm commenting because I find what you're putting out there to be revolting & actively harmful to our shared society & I'm using the same platform you are to voice my objections.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    But hey, if you think that most of your posts here are not trolling than carry on.
    Keep on thinking I'm trolling & not making an honest, heartfelt critique of your terrible bigoted rhetoric if it helps you sleep better at night.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    We both know its what you have selected here by now. Maybe since 2007. Again no judgement in that as its a hopelessly dysfunctional board. But you don't wish it to be any different and you want there to be opportunities here to troll every time you come on the board. This is what you want from the board.
    It's the hateful regressives like yourself who're responsible for the dysfunctional nature of the board, but conveniently labeling any critique of your positions as "trolling" immediately removes you & your ilk from any responsibility or further introspection, free to keep posting your garbage with impunity because all of the vocal objections are just from haters trying to get your goat. How convenient for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    At least be honest about it.
    As if I'd take advice on honesty from a narcissist who has a comically underdeveloped sense of personal accountability mixed with a curious amount of self-aggrandizement. Or, to put it another way, "you first".
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  51. #51

    Default

    ^Projection personified, noodle style. I'd give you a slow clap but it might lead to narcissistic, self-aggrandizement, or self flagellation in your case.

    Happy New Year btw. No resolutions?
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  52. #52

    Default

    Keep trying to make my comments about your regressive, outmoded, discriminatory & ignorant beliefs about me, if only because your complaining about me "trolling" you keeps you from spewing more of your mental sewage into the thread. I'll happily take your inconsequential & vain protestations if it means you're focused on me & not advocating keeping LGBTQ+ out of parts of the public sphere that heterosexuals can enjoy with near-impunity.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  53. #53
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    I think that if traditional gyms in Edmonton were welcoming to LGBTQ people, they wouldn't have the need for a facility catering exclusively to LGBTQ people. But when the article says things like:

    Male and female change rooms, gendered intake forms, and a focus on physical appearance are just a few of the barriers that can prevent LGBTQ people from fully, comfortably, and safely accessing traditional fitness facilities.
    and
    "I've had other gym members verbally attack me and I've had instances where I've gone and reported this to management... and not only did they not know what to do to support me, but their answer was to just go work out in the women's centre, assuming that I was a woman."
    then there is already discrimination of LGBTQ people going on.

    I'm certain that LGBTQ people don't want to have to segregate themselves off, but until facilities and staff are welcoming and trained properly, they've found a way to deal with it in a way in which they have control.
    Would be interesting to see citations for that and where it took place etc. That said gyms can be ridiculously stupid places when it comes to thing like attire and theres been several national well publicized incidents involving women wearing pretty standard attire that were basically told to change or leave. For some reason, admittedly, some gyms have been pretty backwards and intolerant places albeit I don't know that all are.
    Are you suggesting someone actually call out the place on social media?

    Your followup suggests you agree that traditional gyms are problematic, but not ALL of them. How does a person know?

    But finally, using the washrooms at fitness facilities either to change, shower, get washed up is a choice, for all. Some use those facilities, some (many) do not. In the WHC I've gone to for decades around 25% of people only walk into the washrooms at all to use the bathroom and they even have lockers in the hallway as well. Another large proportion don't use the showers and a lot of people prefer not to either due to concerns about foot fungi, athletes foot, other possible transmitted issues in showers saunas etc. A large proportion of people come into a club with workout gear on and leave the same way. This would be a choice for anybody that prefers not to experience any possible reaction or issue.
    You think this is an honest solution? The washroom and change facilities can be an important part of going to the gym (especially in this weather), and you're ignoring all the other parts of the issues at the gyms.

    Citations are not "calling out" places on social media, its simply providing the reader with the actual references that you specifically quoted.

    How is the provision I mentioned not a potential or at least plausible solution. Like I stated WHC have lockers available for people to use in the hallway, for people that prefer not utilizing the washroom lockers. The Washrooms also have proper cubicles, the shower stalls have curtains etc.

    Question yes or no. Given the facilities I describe is it possible for a LGBTQ person to use say WHC facilities without detection, ostracism etc?
    I quoted the article in the first post. The first quote was the first paragraph in the article. Did you get that far?

    The provision you mentioned is not a plausible solution because you're literally telling people not to use a thing as a solution to the problem. Have an issue with gendered change rooms and washrooms? Don't use them! How is that a solution? And the washroom and change room issue is only a portion of the issues that some in the LGBTQ community have with traditional gyms. You're not offering solutions, you're trying to eliminate problems. Jumping to solutions before you understand the problem isn't helping this discussion.

    edit: I didn't answer your last question. The answer is No, for some LGBTQ people.
    Last edited by Channing; 03-01-2018 at 02:08 PM.

  54. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Keep trying to make my comments about your regressive, outmoded, discriminatory & ignorant beliefs about me, if only because your complaining about me "trolling" you keeps you from spewing more of your mental sewage into the thread. I'll happily take your inconsequential & vain protestations if it means you're focused on me & not advocating keeping LGBTQ+ out of parts of the public sphere that heterosexuals can enjoy with near-impunity.
    I hadn't voiced any of the above. Its my opinion that self imposed segregation in an "only club" is a different closet of sorts and a self imposed one at that. I don't know that its productive, maybe it is.

    It probably is Ok to have differing opinions without being labelled as regressive. With your positing of that being meaningless anyway as its your acknowledged form of "hello"

    Anyway, you missed replying to post 46 if your care to.

    ps I wasn't expecting you to accept my recognition of your posting here. Just be honest with yourself.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  55. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    I think that if traditional gyms in Edmonton were welcoming to LGBTQ people, they wouldn't have the need for a facility catering exclusively to LGBTQ people. But when the article says things like:

    Male and female change rooms, gendered intake forms, and a focus on physical appearance are just a few of the barriers that can prevent LGBTQ people from fully, comfortably, and safely accessing traditional fitness facilities.
    and
    "I've had other gym members verbally attack me and I've had instances where I've gone and reported this to management... and not only did they not know what to do to support me, but their answer was to just go work out in the women's centre, assuming that I was a woman."
    then there is already discrimination of LGBTQ people going on.

    I'm certain that LGBTQ people don't want to have to segregate themselves off, but until facilities and staff are welcoming and trained properly, they've found a way to deal with it in a way in which they have control.
    Would be interesting to see citations for that and where it took place etc. That said gyms can be ridiculously stupid places when it comes to thing like attire and theres been several national well publicized incidents involving women wearing pretty standard attire that were basically told to change or leave. For some reason, admittedly, some gyms have been pretty backwards and intolerant places albeit I don't know that all are.
    Are you suggesting someone actually call out the place on social media?

    Your followup suggests you agree that traditional gyms are problematic, but not ALL of them. How does a person know?

    But finally, using the washrooms at fitness facilities either to change, shower, get washed up is a choice, for all. Some use those facilities, some (many) do not. In the WHC I've gone to for decades around 25% of people only walk into the washrooms at all to use the bathroom and they even have lockers in the hallway as well. Another large proportion don't use the showers and a lot of people prefer not to either due to concerns about foot fungi, athletes foot, other possible transmitted issues in showers saunas etc. A large proportion of people come into a club with workout gear on and leave the same way. This would be a choice for anybody that prefers not to experience any possible reaction or issue.
    You think this is an honest solution? The washroom and change facilities can be an important part of going to the gym (especially in this weather), and you're ignoring all the other parts of the issues at the gyms.

    Citations are not "calling out" places on social media, its simply providing the reader with the actual references that you specifically quoted.

    How is the provision I mentioned not a potential or at least plausible solution. Like I stated WHC have lockers available for people to use in the hallway, for people that prefer not utilizing the washroom lockers. The Washrooms also have proper cubicles, the shower stalls have curtains etc.

    Question yes or no. Given the facilities I describe is it possible for a LGBTQ person to use say WHC facilities without detection, ostracism etc?
    I quoted the article in the first post. The first quote was the first paragraph in the article. Did you get that far?

    The provision you mentioned is not a plausible solution because you're literally telling people not to use a thing as a solution to the problem. Have an issue with gendered change rooms and washrooms? Don't use them! How is that a solution? And the washroom and change room issue is only a portion of the issues that some in the LGBTQ community have with traditional gyms. You're not offering solutions, you're trying to eliminate problems. Jumping to solutions before you understand the problem isn't helping this discussion.
    I had been responding to your post #24. I was not aware the quotes were from the OP article. I'll take another look at it.

    All we seem to be disagreeing with here is a nature of sel selected segregation. I don't feel that is a helpful solution either. I feel societal change and acceptance is a better one. Do we further that by furthering division and separate places for all? I don't think that question is entirely unreasonable as some here would suggest.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  56. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Anyway, you missed replying to post 46 if your care to.
    What's there worth replying to? It's a garbage post from a garbage poster. You accused me incorrectly of constructing a straw man, after I dared to condemn you for making the suggestion that LGBTQ+ should use facilities where they're not out in the open & then tried to say that wasn't marginalizing them & that the existence of a modicum of facilities that provide this one limited & partial band-aid fix to a single aspect of a complex & deep societal problem obviates the need for them to have a space where they can enjoy/experience the same gym environment that heterosexuals can.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Just be honest with yourself.
    Yeah, you don't know the first thing about me & your attempts to psychoanalyze me aren't particularly amusing, accurate or entertaining. 1/10, stick to your crotchety old man schtick, you pull it off much better than this faux Dr. Phil rigmarole.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  57. #57
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I had been responding to your post #24. I was not aware the quotes were from the OP article. I'll take another look at it.

    All we seem to be disagreeing with here is a nature of sel selected segregation. I don't feel that is a helpful solution either. I feel societal change and acceptance is a better one. Do we further that by furthering division and separate places for all? I don't think that question is entirely unreasonable as some here would suggest.
    My post #24 references the article.

    Societal change and acceptance is slow on this issue. For example, the bathroom bills in the US. GSA's in Alberta. A large portion of this board. The division exists now, those that don't get separate spaces essentially get no spaces. A group of people got fed up with waiting and did something withing their power to change. Literally affection zero people who are not LGBTQ. They're providing more access than there was before.

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    The provision you mentioned is not a plausible solution because you're literally telling people not to use a thing as a solution to the problem. Have an issue with gendered change rooms and washrooms? Don't use them! How is that a solution? And the washroom and change room issue is only a portion of the issues that some in the LGBTQ community have with traditional gyms. You're not offering solutions, you're trying to eliminate problems. Jumping to solutions before you understand the problem isn't helping this discussion.

    edit: I didn't answer your last question. The answer is No, for some LGBTQ people.
    He's never going to understand anything that doesn't directly connect to his own personal experience of being a crotchety old dude who's infallible due to shirking personal responsibility when his own choices, actions & words cause unintended consequences.

    I appreciate you handling him with more tact & depth than I can possibly muster in his general direction.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  59. #59
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Its my opinion that self imposed segregation in an "only club" is a different closet of sorts and a self imposed one at that.
    I share that opinion. My first response to reading this was that I thought it was very unfortunate that some people felt this necessary. Societal change and acceptance may be slow, but I don't see self-segregation speeding it up in any way.

  60. #60

    Default

    Well, the self-segregation would help more if the people who intentionally or inadvertently cause the LGBTQ+ community to feel vulnerable enough that this option is economically & culturally viable would take a look at their own contributions to the situation & change their own norms to be more inclusive & tolerant, but instead we have people stating that while we should have a more open & tolerant society & the road to that is in keeping certain environments & experiences free of those that are most vulnerable by sequestering them.

    If "out of sight, out of mind" via separate changing & shower areas is a valid solution to the locker room problem (itself only one minor problem in a complex, compound issue), why does it apply only to where the showers & lockers are, not the workout areas? It's not as if LGBTQ+ are only vulnerable to harassment while they're undressed.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  61. #61

    Default

    As I understand it, per the PC thought police, basically any segregation today is ok, as long as its not white or male heterosexual exclusive. Everyone else is a minority or is discriminated against, so its fine if they want to closet themselves away. Its ok to have womens only gyms. Gay gyms. Muslim sanctioned swim times. Its probably ok to black gyms or brown gyms. Just not white or hetrosexual, either of those would be outrageous. I can't say it bugs me, its just the way it is in western society now.
    Last edited by moahunter; 03-01-2018 at 02:59 PM.

  62. #62
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Its my opinion that self imposed segregation in an "only club" is a different closet of sorts and a self imposed one at that.
    I share that opinion. My first response to reading this was that I thought it was very unfortunate that some people felt this necessary. Societal change and acceptance may be slow, but I don't see self-segregation speeding it up in any way.
    Is IS unfortunate that some people feel this is necessary.

    So what are you suggesting some LGBTQ people do otherwise? Just not use gym facilities while the societal change and acceptance happens?

    edit: Noodle said it well before I posted this.
    Last edited by Channing; 03-01-2018 at 03:00 PM.

  63. #63
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    As I understand it, per the PC thought police, basically any segregation today is ok, as long as its not white or male heterosexual exclusive. Everyone else is a minority or is discriminated against, so its fine if they want to closet themselves away. Its ok to have womens only gyms. Gay gyms. Muslim sanctioned swim times. Its probably ok to black gyms or brown gyms. Just not white or hetrosexual, either of those would be outrageous. I can't say it bugs me, its just the way it is in western society now.
    I don't believe you understand it.

  64. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    As I understand it, per the PC thought police, basically any segregation today is ok, as long as its not white or male heterosexual exclusive. Everyone else is a minority or is discriminated against, so its fine if they want to closet themselves away. Its ok to have womens only gyms. Gay gyms. Muslim sanctioned swim times. Its probably ok to black gyms or brown gyms. Just not white or hetrosexual, either of those would be outrageous. I can't say it bugs me, its just the way it is in western society now.
    Yeah, us heterosexual white males have it so rough in western society, not being able to tell everyone what to do without fear of recrimination or consequence. Why can't things be like the good ol' days when our narrow demographic had an inordinate & inappropriate amount of control over society writ large!? Damn other people wanting to be treated fairly & to have the same level of self-determination, respect, rights, opportunities & experiences as the privileged few still do! So ungrateful! So uppity!
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  65. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    I don't believe you understand it.
    Truer words have not been spoken in this thread.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  66. #66
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,166

    Default

    Funny that women's gyms are brought up. The prime reason for their existence is so that they aren't sexually harassed or who have body image issues. I know some guys who regard the gym as a meet market.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  67. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Well, the self-segregation would help more if the people who intentionally or inadvertently cause the LGBTQ+ community to feel vulnerable enough that this option is economically & culturally viable would take a look at their own contributions to the situation & change their own norms to be more inclusive & tolerant, but instead we have people stating that while we should have a more open & tolerant society & the road to that is in keeping certain environments & experiences free of those that are most vulnerable by sequestering them.

    If "out of sight, out of mind" via separate changing & shower areas is a valid solution to the locker room problem (itself only one minor problem in a complex, compound issue), why does it apply only to where the showers & lockers are, not the workout areas? It's not as if LGBTQ+ are only vulnerable to harassment while they're undressed.
    It would seem that a segregated club is more out of sight, out of mind, and not an inclusive solution. Does that validly address anything or bandaid it. I'm fine with it helping if it helps but I don't see it as a progression. Maybe more mitigation in view of how you describe it.

    But anyway, cheers and keep sharing the love, warm glows, and acceptance that you bring.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  68. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Its my opinion that self imposed segregation in an "only club" is a different closet of sorts and a self imposed one at that.
    I share that opinion. My first response to reading this was that I thought it was very unfortunate that some people felt this necessary. Societal change and acceptance may be slow, but I don't see self-segregation speeding it up in any way.
    Precisely. Actual acceptance is worth working for. Inclusion is the primary agent in that. I think we all lose with interventions like this club.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  69. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    It would seem that a segregated club is more out of sight, out of mind, and not an inclusive solution. Does that validly address anything or bandaid it. I'm fine with it helping if it helps but I don't see it as a progression. Maybe more mitigation in view of how you describe it.
    It is an inclusive solution, in that it allows a wider spectrum of LGBTQ+ to be included in an activity sphere they were previously excluded from for a multitude of possible reasons. The fact that there's people with copious other options being excluded does not mean that the LGBTQ+-only club isn't increasing inclusivity overall. The addition of one gym that's LGBTQ+-only has NO BEARING on the availability of recreation & workout options for those outside their market/mandate, you've got the exact same options available to you as an old hetero white dude now that you did before this gym opened. It literally has no impact or influence on you, besides getting a bee in your bonnet because for one of the first times in what I'm guessing is a half dozen or so decades you're on the outside looking in & there's nothing you can do about it & it makes you feel crummy to be excluded based upon things out of your control.

    Now imagine how it'd feel to have been subjected to the reciprocal & been excluded or marginalized by intentional default for the vast majority of your life. I'm sure even with your limited level of introspection & empathy you can do the emotional math & get at least some sense of reckoning of how it'd feel to have the shoe on the other foot. Or maybe not...

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    But anyway, cheers and keep sharing the love, warm glows, and acceptance that you bring.
    Yeah, keep making it about how I express my dissatisfaction with your ignorance rather than the root cause, your own regressive beliefs. Deflect, deflect, deflect, with a side of discredit thrown in every now and again.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  70. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    As I understand it, per the PC thought police, basically any segregation today is ok, as long as its not white or male heterosexual exclusive. Everyone else is a minority or is discriminated against, so its fine if they want to closet themselves away. Its ok to have womens only gyms. Gay gyms. Muslim sanctioned swim times. Its probably ok to black gyms or brown gyms. Just not white or hetrosexual, either of those would be outrageous. I can't say it bugs me, its just the way it is in western society now.
    Yeah, us heterosexual white males have it so rough in western society, not being able to tell everyone what to do without fear of recrimination or consequence.
    I know, in western PC society today, discrimination and exclusiveness is perfectly fine as long as its not white hetrosexual males doing it, because they have done bad stuff (and they have), whereas supposedly women and other groups never have.

  71. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I think we all lose with interventions like this club.
    What do you lose? Do you feel that this is somehow more important than someone gaining a safe space where they feel comfortable to engage in physical fitness?

    Please, let me know how a gym you'd never want to go to not letting you in diminishes your life in a way that you feel it's important enough to deny someone the same access through their perceived potential for abuse, rather than administrative, means.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  72. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I know, in western PC society today, discrimination and exclusiveness is perfectly fine as long as its not white hetrosexual males doing it, because they have done bad stuff (and they have), whereas supposedly women and other groups never have.
    I don't know if it's really possible for someone to so thoroughly miss the point except by sheer effort & intense dedication to their own ignorance.

    (Also, you're slipping back into that habit of tacking riders onto other people's arguments & putting words/intent into their mouths that's entirely the product of your own weird little mind)
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  73. #73

    Default 4 Reasons Why Gyms Should Be For Men Only

    ^I keep thinking of those movies, where the token women tries to break into male dominated society. One day some token guy will try to break in and be accepted in a female dominated gym (I had a short bodybuilder work colleague once who told me the equipment designed for women worked better for him) I guess by tagging a gym "Gay", men can at least try to exclude some women (heterosexual females) if they want to. In fairness, I doubt anyone will actually be prohibited from using this gym.

    Lets be clear here—I am in no way trying to argue that women should not work out. After all, women only have any discernible sexual marketplace value (SMV) for about ten years, with it dropping dramatically after they reach their thirties. If there is anything that is going to reduce a woman’s SMV quicker and earlier it’s going to be them not looking after their bodies.

    I also do not have an issue with the idea of women-only gyms, which are already popping up everywhere; the justification for this being that women feel more confident working out in a woman-only environment. Anything that gets women to look after themselves so that they can be more appealing to men is a winner in my book.

    Strangely when it was suggested that a male-only gym might open here in the UK, there was a massive uproar from the liberal and feminist quarter. The suggestion that a men-only club would promote misogyny (because that would be so terrible) and that men together would become secretive, I guess the idea being we would club together and disagree with the feminist agenda.

    This article is about the reasons men only gyms are important to neomasculinity and how they assist men with two very important parts of this ideology; self improvement and testosterone.
    http://www.returnofkings.com/80737/4...ld-be-men-only

    1. It would increase testosterone levels and competitiveness
    2. It would mean that men would only give up equipment for other men.
    3. It would stop the distractions
    4. It would encourage brotherhood and male bonding
    Last edited by moahunter; 03-01-2018 at 03:54 PM.

  74. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^I keep thinking of those movies, where the token women tries to break into male dominated society. One day some token guy will try to break in and be accepted in a female dominated gym (I had a short bodybuilder work colleague once who told me the equipment designed for women worked better for him) I guess by tagging a gym "Gay", men can at least try to exclude some women (heterosexual females) if they want to. In fairness, I doubt anyone will actually be prohibited from using this gym.
    Projecting outdated, farcical Hollywood scenarios in order to build a strawman is even more ludicrous than projecting your own depravity, congrats moa at raising the bar at being a low person once again.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  75. #75
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    It is an inclusive solution, in that it allows a wider spectrum of LGBTQ+ to be included in an activity sphere they were previously excluded from for a multitude of possible reasons. The fact that there's people with copious other options being excluded does not mean that the LGBTQ+-only club isn't increasing inclusivity overall. The addition of one gym that's LGBTQ+-only has NO BEARING on the availability of recreation & workout options for those outside their market/mandate, you've got the exact same options available to you as an old hetero white dude now that you did before this gym opened. It literally has no impact or influence on you, besides getting a bee in your bonnet because for one of the first times in what I'm guessing is a half dozen or so decades you're on the outside looking in & there's nothing you can do about it & it makes you feel crummy to be excluded based upon things out of your control.

    Now imagine how it'd feel to have been subjected to the reciprocal & been excluded or marginalized by intentional default for the vast majority of your life. I'm sure even with your limited level of introspection & empathy you can do the emotional math & get at least some sense of reckoning of how it'd feel to have the shoe on the other foot. Or maybe not...
    It isn't a solution, it's an adaptation to intolerance that does nothing to help reduce it. To the meatheads, it could even be seen as providing an excuse for their behavior ("What are those queers doing here? They have their own gym, why don't they go over there?"). I look forward to the day when all _____-only facilities close because everyone feels comfortable at facilities that are open to everyone.

  76. #76
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,663

    Default

    Did you seriously post a link to a "Red Pill" article? Do you have any idea who the scum bag behind that site is?

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roosh_V

    https://www.vox.com/2016/2/6/1092687...o-rape-rallies

    So in a thread talking about inclusivity for the LGBTQ+ community, you post an article from a website run by a homophobic pick-up artist? Wow.

  77. #77

    Default

    ^Regardless, do you agree male only gyms should be fine, given that women only gyms are allowed? Or is it only ok if the men are gay?

    On a related thought, I have long believed that universities should have Chauvinist studies, since Feminist studies are allowed.

  78. #78
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,478

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    It isn't a solution, it's an adaptation to intolerance that does nothing to help reduce it. To the meatheads, it could even be seen as providing an excuse for their behavior ("What are those queers doing here? They have their own gym, why don't they go over there?"). I look forward to the day when all _____-only facilities close because everyone feels comfortable at facilities that are open to everyone.

    I think we will all be dead before that day happens. I don't think the day will come that there aren't people who feel the need to belittle and devalue others to make themselves feel better.

  79. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I think we all lose with interventions like this club.
    What do you lose? Do you feel that this is somehow more important than someone gaining a safe space where they feel comfortable to engage in physical fitness?

    Please, let me know how a gym you'd never want to go to not letting you in diminishes your life in a way that you feel it's important enough to deny someone the same access through their perceived potential for abuse, rather than administrative, means.
    Its not what I lose. Its society that loses, through lack of LGBTQ finding everyday establishments inclusive. Which only occurs through furthering their use. Titanium answered you well. I'll add that avoidance furthers fears, furthers discord, disconnection etc. Its fine that LGBTQ can have their own segregated establishments, but what you don't fathom is this only mitigates, its only a bandaid option. It is not transformative. It doesn't help change anything in an already disconnected society.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  80. #80
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ^someone is angry.

    Are you going to start threatening posters here this time?

    just wondering
    i would guess frustrated maybe more than angry...

    maybe i’ll take one more stab at a comparable for you.

    let’s say the trainer here was a double amputee ptsd survivor who was offering gym trading for other amputees.

    let’s say the trainer was the survivor of a fire with substantial face and body scarring who was offering gym training for other fire victims.

    let’s say the trainer suffered from scoliosis or muscular dystrophy and was offering gym training for those similarly afflicted or disadvantaged.

    would you be flying the same discrimination/segregation/human rights flag insisting that those individuals need to open their classes to the general public or take them them to the neighbourhood world health club?
    Wouldn't those services be specifically geared to providing services to people that had suffered injuries, had physical limitations, and were going to rehab using catered, designed equipment in a facility that knew their physical limitations and challenges?

    I don't think those are good examples of what you're trying to say. No, I do not think that LGBTQ are physically or mentally challenged or have those limitations. Why are you using a disabled context of examples?

    So I'm more confused than ever at what you are trying to state.

    Even a bit more confused that you are singling me out in the exchange and supporting a poster that just made clearly threatening innuendo and from a poster that HAS physically threatened people here before.

    I mean if we're running a civil board here one would think that would be addressed.
    when the examples were gender based you questioned their validity in this discussion.

    so i attempted to provide you with some non-gender based examples.

    i apologise if that confuses you.

    as to “singling you out”, i haven’t “singled you out”... we have exchanged numerous posts in this thread including attempts by me to answer questions you have addressed to me.

    if that now qualifies as being uncivil, i’ll put that opinion in the same category as those that consider me to be a left wing apologist spokesperson and step back from the discussion to see if some perspective surfaces in my absence.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  81. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Its my opinion that self imposed segregation in an "only club" is a different closet of sorts and a self imposed one at that.
    I share that opinion. My first response to reading this was that I thought it was very unfortunate that some people felt this necessary. Societal change and acceptance may be slow, but I don't see self-segregation speeding it up in any way.
    Well that is the heart of the matter, the club is self imposed and that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's not wrong for some in the LGBTQ community to feel uncomfortable in a regular gym setting. Just about every one no matter what their sexuality could feel uncomfortable in certain settings. Certain LGBTQ members might feel perfectly fine going to a regular gym but if others don't why not give them an option of going where they do feel comfortable. Its not like they are segregating their whole life, just the gym part. I don't think it's being regressive on their part, it's just them finding a solution to their problem.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  82. #82

    Default

    So if someones not comfortable with lgbtq around them can that person/business open a gym that doesn't allow anyone whos gay?

    It sounds like we want to be as accomadating as possible to those who aren't "comfortable" with others.

  83. #83

    Default

    ^No that would be discrimination on the basis of sexuality. It would also be what is commonly know as 'redneck'.
    Last edited by Gemini; 03-01-2018 at 07:43 PM.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  84. #84
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    So if someones not comfortable with lgbtq around them can that person/business open a gym that doesn't allow anyone whos gay?

    It sounds like we want to be as accomadating as possible to those who aren't "comfortable" with others.
    No, you're suggesting a false equivalent.

    LGBTQ people don't have a problem being around non LGBTQ people. Non LGBTQ people are the ones attacking the LGBTQ people. That's what they're trying to avoid. Or the facilities are ill-equipped or staff under trained or prepared to deal with some LGBTQ people.

  85. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^No that would be discrimination on the basis of sexuality. It would also be what is commonly know as 'redneck'.
    You're right and rightfully so. But when we flip this around its okay for this gym to discriminate against others by denying services based on their sexuality.

    You cant have it one way and not another.

  86. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^No that would be discrimination on the basis of sexuality. It would also be what is commonly know as 'redneck'.
    You're right and rightfully so. But when we flip this around its okay for this gym to discriminate against others by denying services based on their sexuality.

    You cant have it one way and not another.
    On the other hand why would a hetrosexual want to go to a LGBTQ gym when there are countless others in the city. The only way a hetrosexual may want to go is if they go as a guest of one of the members or if someone was just plain old onery and wanted to rock the boat. I don't think the LGBTQ community are being unreasonable opening this gym and wanting to be with like minded people. They want to feel comfortable and excepted with people they have things in common with. It could take maybe one, two, three generations before LGBTQ are fully excepted and inter grated in all parts of life, well in the western world anyway. They are just looking for solutions to get by for the present time.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  87. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ^someone is angry.

    Are you going to start threatening posters here this time?

    just wondering
    i would guess frustrated maybe more than angry...

    maybe i’ll take one more stab at a comparable for you.

    let’s say the trainer here was a double amputee ptsd survivor who was offering gym trading for other amputees.

    let’s say the trainer was the survivor of a fire with substantial face and body scarring who was offering gym training for other fire victims.

    let’s say the trainer suffered from scoliosis or muscular dystrophy and was offering gym training for those similarly afflicted or disadvantaged.

    would you be flying the same discrimination/segregation/human rights flag insisting that those individuals need to open their classes to the general public or take them them to the neighbourhood world health club?
    Wouldn't those services be specifically geared to providing services to people that had suffered injuries, had physical limitations, and were going to rehab using catered, designed equipment in a facility that knew their physical limitations and challenges?

    I don't think those are good examples of what you're trying to say. No, I do not think that LGBTQ are physically or mentally challenged or have those limitations. Why are you using a disabled context of examples?

    So I'm more confused than ever at what you are trying to state.

    Even a bit more confused that you are singling me out in the exchange and supporting a poster that just made clearly threatening innuendo and from a poster that HAS physically threatened people here before.

    I mean if we're running a civil board here one would think that would be addressed.
    when the examples were gender based you questioned their validity in this discussion.

    so i attempted to provide you with some non-gender based examples.

    i apologise if that confuses you.

    as to “singling you out”, i haven’t “singled you out”... we have exchanged numerous posts in this thread including attempts by me to answer questions you have addressed to me.

    if that now qualifies as being uncivil, i’ll put that opinion in the same category as those that consider me to be a left wing apologist spokesperson and step back from the discussion to see if some perspective surfaces in my absence.
    To simplify look back at your post 31. If you think that is an acceptable reply to what I have stated in the thread then perhaps its better that you do refrain. Please cite where I emphasized the strawman argument you posited at the end of that post in reply to me. Maybe you're having trouble keeping the dialog separate and remembering who said what. My primary concern is not that LGBTQ prevent other members from attending. its that the existence of these clubs represents self segregation and will only further lack of inclusion rather than work towards inclusion. Not sure how I could state it simpler so as to limit any confusion.

    but alas, peoples minds are made up about what others are stating without even so much as looking clearly at what they are stating.

    Again, its preferable to ask for clarification of others positions prior to assuming what they are.
    Last edited by Replacement; 03-01-2018 at 09:35 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  88. #88
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    If you think that is an acceptable reply to what I have stated in the thread then perhaps its better that you do refrain
    Please use your own advice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    but alas, peoples minds are made up about what others are stating without even so much as looking at what they are stating.
    Also this advice. You're literally not reading some of the things I write, ie me posting quotes from the article and stating so, and you asking for citations.

  89. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Its not what I lose. Its society that loses, through lack of LGBTQ finding everyday establishments inclusive. Which only occurs through furthering their use. Titanium answered you well. I'll add that avoidance furthers fears, furthers discord, disconnection etc. Its fine that LGBTQ can have their own segregated establishments, but what you don't fathom is this only mitigates, its only a bandaid option. It is not transformative. It doesn't help change anything in an already disconnected society.
    So you just want to make things as difficult & unpleasant as possible in the interim? You seem to think that the ongoing progress in human rights has always been a smooth, peaceful & healthy process, not one fraught with violence, harassment, assault, threats & worse. Somehow LGBTQ+ people owe it to society to endure the (often institutionalized) marginalization, harassment & discrimination so they can push things forward, rather than take it upon themselves to create an environment for themselves where they can be themselves & part of a community/social sphere without fearing recrimination based upon their simple existence?

    Yeah, no. Other people shouldn't have to suffer to push society forward when there's other far less harmful & hurtful options & to state otherwise is savage, crude & regressive to the extreme.

    I never said this was the ultimate solution, that's something you implied yourself. The fact LGBTQ+-only establishments need to be a thing in the 21st century shows how far we still have to go & just like correcting a car drifting in its lane, it's appropriate to turn & start drifting the OTHER way in the same lane before straightening out & continuing purely ahead.

    (I find it super hilarious that the guy who's solution was to shove everyone into cubicles while they change decrying other people's far more comprehensive & complete solutions as "band aid" fixes)
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  90. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    If you think that is an acceptable reply to what I have stated in the thread then perhaps its better that you do refrain
    Please use your own advice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    but alas, peoples minds are made up about what others are stating without even so much as looking at what they are stating.
    Also this advice. You're literally not reading some of the things I write, ie me posting quotes from the article and stating so, and you asking for citations.
    Excuse me if in the context of getting attacked by multiple parties at once for comments that are completely reasonable, and just discussion, that I might not have responded in the most ideal way to some posts. Thank you as well for not framing your comments as an attack this time. I do not think anything I posted to you in the thread was unreasonable other than my not realizing the quotes were part of the OP which I already acknowledged.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  91. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Its not what I lose. Its society that loses, through lack of LGBTQ finding everyday establishments inclusive. Which only occurs through furthering their use. Titanium answered you well. I'll add that avoidance furthers fears, furthers discord, disconnection etc. Its fine that LGBTQ can have their own segregated establishments, but what you don't fathom is this only mitigates, its only a bandaid option. It is not transformative. It doesn't help change anything in an already disconnected society.
    So you just want to make things as difficult & unpleasant as possible in the interim? You seem to think that the ongoing progress in human rights has always been a smooth, peaceful & healthy process, not one fraught with violence, harassment, assault, threats & worse. Somehow LGBTQ+ people owe it to society to endure the (often institutionalized) marginalization, harassment & discrimination so they can push things forward, rather than take it upon themselves to create an environment for themselves where they can be themselves & part of a community/social sphere without fearing recrimination based upon their simple existence?

    Yeah, no. Other people shouldn't have to suffer to push society forward when there's other far less harmful & hurtful options & to state otherwise is savage, crude & regressive to the extreme.

    I never said this was the ultimate solution, that's something you implied yourself. The fact LGBTQ+-only establishments need to be a thing in the 21st century shows how far we still have to go & just like correcting a car drifting in its lane, it's appropriate to turn & start drifting the OTHER way in the same lane before straightening out & continuing purely ahead.

    (I find it super hilarious that the guy who's solution was to shove everyone into cubicles while they change decrying other people's far more comprehensive & complete solutions as "band aid" fixes)
    I find it super hilarious everytime you post a reply. You'll have to find somebody else to troll. I'll be busy.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  92. #92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I find it super hilarious everytime you post a reply. You'll have to find somebody else to troll. I'll be busy.
    Thanks for taking my suggestions to heart & keeping your regressive, retrograde & utterly harmful opinions on the civil rights of the LGBTQ+ community firmly out of the public sphere & locked safely away in your cranky old man brain where they belong.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  93. #93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    So if someones not comfortable with lgbtq around them can that person/business open a gym that doesn't allow anyone whos gay?

    It sounds like we want to be as accomadating as possible to those who aren't "comfortable" with others.
    No, you're suggesting a false equivalent.

    LGBTQ people don't have a problem being around non LGBTQ people. Non LGBTQ people are the ones attacking the LGBTQ people. That's what they're trying to avoid. Or the facilities are ill-equipped or staff under trained or prepared to deal with some LGBTQ people.
    Really? I thought we were past that as a society. Are there some LGBTQ people who are attacked by Non LGBTQ people? Yes. Are there some LGBTQ people who are attacked by LGBTQ people? Yes (e.g. Luke Magnota). Some people attack some people. But because you think some groups are picked on more, they are allowed to be discriminatory, but other groups aren't? I think a hetrosexual gym should be perfectly acceptable if a gay gym is acceptable, just as a male gym should be acceptable if female gyms are acceptable. All genders should have the same rights, and if that includes exclusivity per the latest politically correct theory, then so be it, but its immoral to allow that for some but not others.
    Last edited by moahunter; 04-01-2018 at 03:20 PM.

  94. #94
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    So if someones not comfortable with lgbtq around them can that person/business open a gym that doesn't allow anyone whos gay?

    It sounds like we want to be as accomadating as possible to those who aren't "comfortable" with others.
    No, you're suggesting a false equivalent.

    LGBTQ people don't have a problem being around non LGBTQ people. Non LGBTQ people are the ones attacking the LGBTQ people. That's what they're trying to avoid. Or the facilities are ill-equipped or staff under trained or prepared to deal with some LGBTQ people.
    Really? I thought we were past that as a society. Are there some LGBTQ people who are attacked by Non LGBTQ people? Yes. Are there some LGBTQ people who are attacked by LGBTQ people? Yes (e.g. Luke Magnota). Some people attack some people. But because you think some groups are picked on more, they are allowed to be discriminatory, but other groups aren't? I think a hetrosexual gym should be perfectly acceptable if a gay gym is acceptable, just as a male gym should be acceptable if female gyms are acceptable. All genders should have the same rights, and if that includes exclusivity per the latest politically correct theory, then so be it, but its immoral to allow that for some but not others.
    no.

  95. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Really? I thought we were past that as a society. Are there some LGBTQ people who are attacked by Non LGBTQ people? Yes.





    https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002.../11635-eng.htm

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Are there some LGBTQ people who are attacked by LGBTQ people? Yes (e.g. Luke Magnota). Some people attack some people. But because you think some groups are picked on more, they are allowed to be discriminatory, but other groups aren't?
    Yes. The fact that there's antisocial sociopaths across the sexual & gender spectrum does not magically remove the ingrained, institutionalized & systemic discrimination that LGBTQ+ face, nor does it make "reverse discrimination" by those with less agency in society trying to create a safe space for themselves any more of a real thing. It's as much a made up & nonsensical idea as trickle-down economics (another wacky theory you think holds water).

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I think a hetrosexual gym should be perfectly acceptable if a gay gym is acceptable, just as a male gym should be acceptable if female gyms are acceptable.
    Keep on showing how completely & intentionally ignorant you are regarding human rights legislation in Canada.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  96. #96

    Default

    Given that 2010 is 8 years ago now, I figured I'd get some more recent data:



    http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quoti...cansim-eng.htm

    So not only are sexual-orientation-related hate crimes still a thing, despite what moahunter believes, they're actually increasing.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  97. #97

    Default

    ^got it, every other gender is allowed to exclude other genders, except for heterosexual men, because heterosexual men are more bad than others.

  98. #98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^got it, every other gender is allowed to exclude other genders, except for heterosexual men, because heterosexual men are more bad than others.

    You say you've got it & then vomit verbal diarrhea proving that you unequivocally & utterly don't. Priceless.

    I'm pretty sure you actually lack the basic human qualities required to actually understand the issue & are literally incapable of understanding human-rights-based concerns.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  99. #99
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    ^^LGBTQ people are already being excluded and so they are looking for a gym that they can go to. Heterosexual men already have gyms they can go to.

  100. #100

    Default

    Moahunter thinks a gym for homophobic heterosexual males is equivalent to a LGBTQ+ only gym, but that's nonsense because the LGBTQ+ aren't heterophobic, they just don't want to be victimized, abused or otherwise made to feel unwelcome/unwanted/inferior for just being themselves.

    False equivalency is the fallacy of the day it seems...
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •