Women-Only Gym Adopts Female-Only Policy, and Reaps the Whirlwind

O ver the weekend, I wrote about a bathhouse in San Francisco that introduced two distinct “women’s nights” that will be held each month. One is “inclusive” and will welcome anyone who claims to be a “woman,” while the second night will offer a “female-only phallus-free environment.” Predictably, activists have dubbed the spa “transphobic.” But the bathhouse isn’t the only venue that has been recently branded as hateful for adopting a female-only policy: A women-only gym opening soon in London has similarly become a target for its “trans-exclusionary” stance.

For years, fitness guru Natalee Barnett has been open with her more than 1 million social media followers about her plans to open a women-only gym, citing her own history of having been sexually assaulted in a gym. Barnett’s project — called “The Girls Spot” — states on its website that it “stems from the desire to tackle gym harassment, intimidation and sexual harassment that women face in the gym regularly.” In 2021, she announced that the supposed women-only gym would welcome “trans women,” meaning men. “Respectfully, if you have a problem with trans women attending my gym then you can find another gym to train at,” Barnett wrote on social media. “I have discussed this several times before, trans women are women and also a minority that need to be protected. Please keep your transphobia away.”

But Barnett changed her mind, in part because the gym has a particular focus on women who have been victims of sexual harassment. This month, she announced on social media that the gym will be women-only, meaning female-only. She released a video affirming that her gym is an effort to establish a “safe space for women” and only “biological women” will be allowed. Barnett further stated that some of her gym’s programming will be tailored toward women’s needs, for instance by offering guidance for exercise during the menstrual cycle, and self-defense classes.

Unsurprisingly, LGBTQ+ activists bombarded Barnett on social media with nasty comments. She was called a “bigot,” “transphobic,” “sick,” and “evil.” Barnett had allegedly “exploited the trans community for her own gain,” gone “out of her way to alienate trans women,” and helped “ostracize” an already “marginalized” group. She also received a number of death threats and gross sexual comments that aren’t worth repeating.

Aside from insults, progressive activists posed hostile questions about enforcing a female-only policy, suggesting (in crass terms) that the gym would need to conduct genital inspections at the front door. These questions are stupid for a number of reasons: Babies that are just a few months old can perceive distinctions between males and females, and adults have near-perfect ability to accurately recognize faces as either male or female. (Even in the event that someone has undergone facial cosmetic surgery, we can draw on features like voice quality or shoulder width to distinguish between the two sexes.) But here’s the entertaining presupposition that progressives probably shouldn’t have admitted: By suggesting that the gym needs an enforcement mechanism to maintain a female-only space, it necessarily assumes that men will attempt to enter despite the gym’s owner and members clearly preferring otherwise. Ironically, this reinforces the justification for establishing women-only spaces.

Thankfully, Barnett has also acquired plenty of new fans who have defended her project, and one article about her gym even attracted the attention of J. K. Rowling. Additionally, Barnett has gotten financial support: An online fundraiser for her gym has received lots of new donations since the social media furor began.

But I’ll refrain from offering Barnett any support, monetary or otherwise, because you can’t feed the wolves and then be surprised when they show up at your door. Barnett hasn’t been a consistent and principled critic of gender-related activism. In fact, she seems perfectly willing to refer to “trans women” as “women,” and it was just a few years ago that she expressed disgust at people for harboring “transphobia.” Since receiving the onslaught of hate (including the death threats), she released a statement reaffirming her support for “trans women,” though she intends to maintain a female-only policy. Barnett stated that “I wholeheartedly sympathise with Trans women and allies who feel hurt by my recent announcement” and added that “my hope is that every woman, cis and trans, finds a space as they need to feel secure, strong and empowered.” Barnett seemingly wants two mutually exclusive things: sex-based protections and unfettered social acceptance for self-declared transgender identity. You cannot simultaneously treat “woman” as a category defined by sex and gender. You have to pick one, and anyone who picks gender is wrong. Ultimately, she’s upholding the very ideology that she’s fighting against.