Staff Reports
A viral video out of Los Angeles shows singer Tish Hyman confronting a person she says was a biologically male patron in the women’s locker room at the Beverly Center Gold’s Gym, and the aftermath has ignited another round in the national debate over privacy and safety in sex-separated spaces. Hyman says she and other women had filed repeated complaints, and after the confrontation her membership was revoked — a decision that has outraged many who believe common-sense boundaries are being ignored.
The footage, which spread quickly on social media, shows Hyman visibly distraught as staff and other patrons respond; the person she confronted, identified in reports as Alexis Black, later defended their right to use the women’s facility and said they were transitioning. Instead of protecting the woman who says she felt violated while unclothed, the gym’s response was to eject the complainant — a choice that smells of woke priorities overruling straightforward safety concerns.
This is not an isolated kerfuffle; gyms and other public accommodations have repeatedly adopted nondiscrimination policies that have, in practice, forced women into humiliating confrontations or into silence. When businesses reflexively side with ideology or legal caution rather than commonsense protections for private spaces, the practical effect is to punish the person who spoke up about a perceived threat. That inference is exactly what conservative critics are rightly condemning.
Some outlets have even reported troubling background details about the individual involved, feeding the perception that public-safety concerns are being swept aside in favor of a catch-all “inclusion” narrative. Whether those reports will hold up under scrutiny is for the record to determine, but the immediate takeaway for many women is obvious: their right to privacy and to feel safe while unclothed in a women’s locker room has been subordinated to an ideological experiment.
Conservative commentators and grassroots voices have rallied behind Hyman, calling the incident a textbook example of how policy and corporate timidity create a dangerous culture of enforced silence. The anger is not mere reflex; it is rooted in a pattern where individuals who insist on sex-specific privacy are sidelined or punished while facilities worry about litigation and outrage from activists.
The correct response from responsible businesses should be practical and protective: provide single-stall changing options, enforce conduct rules rigorously, and respect the reasonable expectations of women sharing spaces where privacy is essential. If companies refuse to take those basic precautions, accountability through legal challenges, boardroom pressure, and consumer choice is a natural and necessary response from those who value safety and decency.
This episode is another reminder that when cultural institutions curry favor with ideology over commonsense norms, ordinary people pay the price. Those who believe in preserving sex-separated spaces and protecting women’s privacy should not be dismissed as hateful or backward; they are raising practical concerns about safety and dignity that deserve a fair hearing and immediate fixes, not punishment.
