Should women-only gyms and spaces be normal, or are they discriminatory?
Safety and comfort, or exclusion you'd never accept if the genders were flipped? A fairness question that makes everyone uncomfortable.
Safety and comfort, or exclusion you'd never accept if the genders were flipped? A fairness question that makes everyone uncomfortable.
Join the debate to comment
Reading is free. Members pay to post — that's why it stays clean.
Add your commenti was sexually assaulted at a mixed gym at 19. locker room. took me four years to go back to any gym at all. i finally joined a women-only one last year. i don't want to debate whether i deserve it. i just want you to know it exists for real people not hypotheticals
if someone can read comment 30 and still come back with 'but is it FAIR though' i genuinely don't know what to say to that person
Three years ago I would've posted something arguing against women-only spaces. Then my daughter started going to the gym at 16. Changed my entire perspective in about two weeks flat.
Intent doesn't change what you're doing. A 'whites only' lunch counter owner would've said the same thing — 'we're not keeping anyone out, we're creating comfort for our customers.' Intent is not a legal or ethical get-out-of-jail-free card.
The comparison to racial segregation keeps coming up and it is genuinely one of the laziest arguments in this debate. Race is immutable, carries no statistical behavioral patterns that affect others, and was enforced by STATE POWER to oppress. Gender-based gym preferences exist because of documented harassment patterns. These are not the same.
Documented harassment patterns lol. So we're now pre-judging all men based on the behavior of some? That IS discrimination by definition. I thought we agreed collective punishment was bad.
Nobody is punishing anyone. You're not being punished by not being invited to a space. You still have access to every other gym on earth. The drama is extraordinary.
Worked as a personal trainer for 11 years, mixed gym. The difference in how women carry themselves when there are no men around — I saw it every time I ran a women-only morning class. Posture changes. Laughter comes out. People stop checking mirrors to see who's watching them. You want to tell me that's not worth protecting?
I think the people most angry about women's gyms existing are also the people who would most benefit from not being in a gym with women. Make that make sense.
The real question nobody's asking: why is the burden on women to create parallel infrastructure instead of on the industry to enforce basic conduct standards in existing spaces? Like yes build the women's gyms BUT ALSO maybe throw out the guys who film people?
Both/and, not either/or. Enforce standards AND provide separate spaces. Why is everyone acting like we have to choose one.
Here's what nobody is saying: men's mental health around body image is genuinely terrible right now and men-only spaces would probably help a lot of guys too. Maybe we should normalize BOTH instead of fighting about whether women deserve theirs.
okay but if a men-only gym opened tomorrow half this comment section would call it a testosterone-poisoned incel den. let's not pretend the reception would be equal
The whole 'flip the genders' argument ignores context entirely. Context is the entire point. Men and women do not have identical histories of harassment in shared physical spaces. Applying identical rules to unequal situations doesn't produce fairness, it preserves the inequality. This is like, day one sociology.
day one sociology lol. the second anyone disagrees with you the response is always 'educate yourself' or 'this is basic.' maybe the argument is actually more complicated than you're giving it credit for
I asked my wife why she likes her women's gym and she looked at me like I'd asked why she liked breathing. Sometimes you have to sit with the fact that your partner's reality is genuinely different from yours.
The 'if the genders were flipped' argument assumes a perfectly symmetric world. It isn't. Men are not historically the group that gets followed, filmed, groped, or condescended to in gym settings. Starting from symmetry when the reality is asymmetric gives you wrong answers.
So historical asymmetry justifies permanent asymmetry going forward? At what point do we decide the playing field is level enough to apply equal rules? Or is that goalpost always moving?
When women stop getting filmed in gym changing rooms we can revisit. There were like 4 arrests for that in the UK last year alone. The goalpost is 'reality.'
I used to think women-only spaces were unnecessary until I watched a man at my gym literally narrate a woman's workout to her, follow her to three different machines, and then complain to staff when she asked him to leave her alone. The staff sided with him. I get it now.
One bad experience at one poorly run gym = all men need to be excluded everywhere? That logic wouldn't fly for any other group.
She didn't say all men. She said she understands why some women want a separate space. You leapt to 'all men' yourself, which is interesting.
Never been to a women's gym. Never wanted to. But I've seen the way some men act in mixed gyms and honestly? Yeah. I get it. I wouldn't want to work out around those guys either and I AM a guy. Build the women's gyms. Build more of them.
my mom joined a women's gym after my dad passed and she said the women there became her whole social world. she's 67. she does aqua aerobics and they go for coffee after. tell me again who's being harmed here
My local council tried to defund a women's only swimming session that had run for 40 years. 40 years. Elderly women, women with religious reasons for modesty, assault survivors. The 'fairness' crowd got it cancelled. Nobody replaced it with a men-only session. They just... removed the option. That's not equality.
I run a small mixed gym. I've seen both sides of this. Had to remove a man for filming. Had a woman ask repeatedly why she couldn't have a 'girl time' slot. Eventually I added Tuesday evening women-only hours. Complaints from men lasted about a week. Now nobody mentions it. Real world implementation is way less dramatic than this comment section.
This is actually the most useful comment here and nobody's going to pay attention to it because it doesn't feed the outrage loop
I've worked in fitness for 11 years. Women's-only gyms have measurably higher retention rates, especially for beginners and older women. They come back. They build habits. The business case is real, the health outcome case is real. What exactly is the problem we're solving by eliminating them?
This is going to sound harsh but: the discomfort some men feel about being excluded from a space is worth significantly less than the discomfort women feel from being harassed in one. Those are not equal weights on the scale.
You're essentially arguing that one group's comfort inherently matters more than another's. That's the kind of reasoning that causes problems when people apply it in directions you don't like.
No, they're arguing that harassment outweighs inconvenience. Those are not the same thing as two 'comforts.' One is a safety issue, one is wounded feelings about being excluded from a yoga class.
What gets me is the asymmetry isn't even about fairness to men — it's about the fact that women with genuine trauma histories literally cannot exercise in mixed spaces. That's a health access issue. We don't debate whether to have accessible bathrooms for wheelchair users.
Except wheelchair users need the ramp because of a physical limitation. Women don't have a physical limitation that prevents them from sharing space with men. The limitation is psychological discomfort, which is real but categorically different.
Psychological discomfort caused by repeated real-world harassment and in many cases assault is not just 'feeling a bit awkward.' That framing is doing a lot of heavy lifting to dismiss trauma.
I genuinely cannot tell if people who invoke the 'but what if it was men only' argument have thought about it for more than 30 seconds or if they just found it clever and stopped there.
My wife trains powerlifting at a women's gym. She competes against men in open competitions. She has no problem with men in competition. But she wants to train heavy without being told she's intimidating or asked if she needs a spotter every 4 minutes. Context matters.
I'm a man and I genuinely don't care. Like... go work out in peace? I'll be over here struggling with the squat rack alone. This isn't the civil rights issue some guys are making it.
Let's be honest, a huge portion of male outrage about this is specifically that they want access to women while they're in vulnerable physical states and spandex. The 'fairness' argument is cover. We all know it.
Genuinely unfair generalization. I object to women's-only spaces on principle and it's got nothing to do with wanting to stare at anyone. You can think a policy is unfair without being a creep.
Flip the sign to 'men only' and watch the same people defending this lose their minds. Either separate spaces are okay or they aren't — you don't get to pick by who it benefits.
I'm trans and the women-only space debate hits differently for me. Not going to pretend it's simple. Just want to say that 'women' isn't as clean a category as this debate assumes, and that uncertainty deserves more airtime than it gets here.
Trans women belong in women's spaces, full stop, and any 'women's only' policy that excludes them is not actually about safety, it's about exclusion wearing safety as a costume.
This is genuinely one of the most complicated parts of the debate and you said it in one sentence like it's obvious. It isn't obvious to a lot of people and dismissing their questions doesn't move anyone.
I manage a women's only gym. Our policy is: you identify as a woman, you're welcome here. We've never had a problem. The scenario people are panicking about just doesn't materialize in practice the way the internet wants you to think it does.
The thing that bugs me isn't women-only gyms themselves, it's when the same people who support them argue against men-only spaces in the same breath. Pick a principle and stick to it. I support both or I support neither.
Look. I'm a guy. I have never once, in 15 years of going to mixed gyms, felt any desire to watch women work out or make them uncomfortable. I go in, I lift things, I leave. The idea that all men are potential predators who need to be excluded is insulting. But also — build the women's gyms. Both things can be true.
The 'not all men' framing always gets brought up as if it's a rebuttal to anything. Nobody said ALL men. The issue is that enough men do cause problems that women have to structure their lives around the possibility. 'Not all' doesn't solve 'enough to matter.'
Philosophically I find this genuinely hard. I believe in integration as a social good. I also believe in bodily autonomy and the right to feel safe exercising. I hold both and I don't fully resolve the tension. Anyone who says this is obvious either way hasn't thought about it.
THANK YOU. Every person in these comments is absolutely certain. I've been going back and forth for 20 minutes.
Private businesses can do what they want. That's literally it. Planet Fitness can set its own rules. Your local boutique gym can set its own rules. A women's only gym is a PRIVATE BUSINESS DECISION. This isn't a constitutional crisis.
the private business argument cuts both ways fyi. 'private business decision' was also the argument used to justify segregated lunch counters. im not saying its the same thing at all, just pointing out that 'private business' doesnt automatically make something ethically fine
Did you just compare women wanting to lift weights without being filmed to Jim Crow. Did that happen.
I re-read the comment and it literally says 'im not saying its the same thing at all.' Reading comprehension is a skill.
There's a difference between a space that exists to keep someone OUT and one that exists to let someone finally feel safe IN. The intent isn't the same, even if the door looks identical.
Here is my genuine question that nobody seems to want to answer directly: if a man has severe social anxiety and genuinely feels more comfortable in a men-only space to work on his fitness, should that space be available to him with the same legitimacy we give to women-only spaces? Yes or no?
Yes, actually. I don't think many people arguing for women's spaces are arguing against the CONCEPT of a men's space. The market just doesn't demand it the same way because men don't face the same documented pattern of harassment in mixed spaces. If enough men wanted it, build it.
This is a thoughtful answer and I appreciate it but I'd bet money that if a men-only gym opened in most major cities it would get protested within a week regardless of the stated reasoning
Switched to a women's gym after years of being filmed and approached mid-set at the regular one. For the first time I actually worked out instead of staying on guard. That's not exclusion, that's relief.
The reason women want them is the exact reason men can't understand the need. When you've never been followed to your car, 'just share the space' sounds so easy.
I'm nonbinary and want to throw in that this debate almost never includes us and honestly I find most women-only spaces welcoming and most mixed spaces fine too? I don't have a strong opinion on the policy but I do wish we got included in the conversation
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills reading this debate. I'm a woman who goes to a mixed gym, I've never had a problem, my male gym friends are lovely, and the women-only gym I tried felt cliquey and unwelcoming to me personally. Different women want different things. Neither option should be forced on anyone.
honestly the cliquey thing is real and nobody talks about it. i tried two women-only gyms and the social dynamics were honestly just as stressful as the mixed one, just different stress. ended up at a 24hr mixed gym at 5am where literally no one talks to anyone and its perfect
Your individual experience not matching the pattern doesn't erase the pattern. I'm glad your gym is great. Mine wasn't.
Private businesses should be able to serve whoever they want, full stop. I say this as someone who also believes women's gyms are a net good. The market should decide, not outrage mobs on either side.
The 'private business' argument falls apart fast. Private businesses couldn't refuse service based on race after 1964. We decided as a society that some forms of exclusion cross a line. The debate here is exactly WHERE that line sits for gender.
okay but where does it end though. women only coffee shops? women only libraries? at some point you have to ask whether gender segregation in public-facing commercial spaces is the direction we actually want to go as a society
A coffee shop and a locker room are not the same thing. This slippery slope argument only works if you refuse to acknowledge that different spaces carry fundamentally different levels of physical vulnerability.
Is it wrong to choose not to have children just because you don't want to?
110 comments
Netflix's 'Adolescence' shows a teenage boy becoming a killer — did the show actually get modern boyhood right, or did it miss the point entirely?
109 comments
Would you still eat meat if you had to kill the animal yourself?
109 comments
Is judging someone by their height as shallow as judging by their weight?
108 comments