Gold’s Gym and Planet Fitness Incidents Ignite National Debate Over Locker Room Policies

Two separate incidents at major gym chains—Gold’s Gym in Los Angeles and Planet Fitness in Michigan—have reignited a fierce national debate over locker-room access, gender identity, and corporate responsibility. Both cases involve female members who claim their memberships were revoked after they confronted or documented individuals they believed to be men in women’s locker rooms. Supporters say these women were punished for defending privacy and safety, while critics accuse them of violating inclusivity rules or filming in restricted areas.

The Gold’s Gym Controversy in Los Angeles

The most recent flashpoint occurred at a Gold’s Gym location in Los Angeles, where R&B singer Tish Hyman says her membership was abruptly terminated following a confrontation in the women’s locker room. According to Hyman, she encountered what she described as a “man with a big D” repeatedly entering the female space. She claims she and several other women had previously reported the same individual to gym management, alleging repeated discomfort and disregard for their privacy.

Hyman posted a video of the confrontation to Instagram, expressing anger that her complaint led not to disciplinary action against the alleged intruder, but rather to her own expulsion. “They banned me because I spoke up,” she said in the clip, asserting that the gym’s staff “protected the wrong person.”

“It’s not about hate—it’s about boundaries. I’m a woman, and I deserve to feel safe when I change my clothes.”

Gold’s Gym has not yet issued a formal public statement regarding the incident, nor has the Los Angeles franchise clarified whether the decision to revoke Hyman’s membership came from corporate policy or local management discretion. The company’s membership guidelines typically reference nondiscrimination policies and compliance with California civil-rights laws, which include protections for gender identity and gender expression.

Under California law, individuals are generally permitted to use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity, a stance aligned with statewide civil-rights legislation. Supporters of such laws argue they ensure transgender individuals are treated with dignity and equality in public accommodations. However, critics contend that the lack of clear boundaries can lead to confusion or abuse, particularly in settings where nudity and personal privacy are involved.

As the video circulated online, political commentators and activists from both sides weighed in. Conservative media personalities framed the event as another example of women being “silenced for speaking truth.” Progressive commentators cautioned that the incident could fuel transphobic backlash and misinformation about gender-inclusive policies.

Governor Gavin Newsom’s office has not commented on the matter as of publication. Online petitions and calls for state intervention have spread quickly, though such matters generally fall outside gubernatorial jurisdiction since gyms are private businesses bound primarily by civil-rights statutes rather than executive enforcement.

The Planet Fitness Precedent

The Gold’s Gym uproar follows a similar controversy that erupted in early 2024 involving Planet Fitness, one of the nation’s largest gym chains. In that case, a Michigan woman named Patricia Silva lost her membership after taking a photo of a transgender member shaving in the women’s locker room. Planet Fitness said Silva violated its strict no-photography rule and confirmed that all members are allowed to use locker rooms corresponding to their self-identified gender.

Silva claimed she had no malicious intent but felt compelled to “document what was happening” because she was startled to find what she described as “a man with stubble and male anatomy” in the locker room. The gym’s corporate office stood by its policy, calling it “inclusive and respectful to all members,” while also emphasizing the need to maintain privacy for everyone—transgender or not.

“Our commitment to creating a welcoming environment means zero tolerance for harassment or invasion of privacy,” the company said in a statement at the time.

That earlier case became a rallying cry among critics of gender-inclusive bathroom and locker-room policies. Planet Fitness faced a brief social-media boycott campaign and a temporary dip in its stock price, though the controversy eventually subsided without major policy changes.

Shared Themes and Public Reaction

Both incidents raise broader questions about how corporations navigate the intersection of inclusivity, privacy, and safety. Gym locker rooms, unlike public restrooms, involve nudity and close quarters—settings where members often expect stronger protections for personal boundaries. Yet businesses are also required to comply with anti-discrimination laws protecting transgender individuals.

For many women, the issue is not necessarily about gender identity itself but about a sense of vulnerability in shared spaces. Social-media reactions to Hyman’s Gold’s Gym case reflect this sentiment: thousands of posts express empathy for her discomfort while insisting that questioning policy does not equal intolerance.

Conversely, LGBTQ+ advocates argue that incidents like these demonstrate the persistent hostility and misunderstanding transgender individuals face. They stress that trans women using female facilities are not “men invading women’s spaces,” but people asserting their right to exist safely in society.

Legal and Policy Context

California’s anti-discrimination statutes, including the Unruh Civil Rights Act and related provisions, prohibit businesses from denying services based on gender identity or expression. This means gyms, spas, and similar facilities cannot legally exclude transgender patrons. However, businesses must still manage privacy, safety, and member comfort—often through staff training, signage, or private changing stalls.

In practice, enforcement of these overlapping priorities can be messy. When emotions run high, as in the Gold’s Gym video, staff may face conflicting pressures between ensuring order and respecting each party’s rights. Legal experts note that membership contracts typically give gyms broad discretion to terminate memberships for behavior deemed disruptive—even if the member believes they acted in self-defense or moral protest.

Where the Debate Goes Next

As videos and hashtags continue to spread, policymakers may face renewed pressure to revisit how gender-inclusive policies are applied in private facilities. Civil-rights organizations have warned that sensationalized coverage can endanger transgender individuals, while privacy advocates argue that honest discussion of women’s concerns should not be silenced under accusations of hate.

For now, both cases highlight the precarious balance companies must strike between inclusion and personal privacy. In the digital era—where a single phone video can ignite nationwide outrage—gyms and other public venues are learning that locker-room policy is no longer a quiet administrative issue, but a cultural battlefield.

Reporting based on coverage from the New York Post, Planet Fitness corporate statements, and public social-media posts as of November 2025.