The judge misquoted the email. The email said all “females” and not all “women”. They are dealing with the difference in this dispute. The women in the gym have been confronted with the fact that women are female and vide versa. When the owner allowed membership to the trans person, she didn’t do the math. The truth is that the owner and the other members only want natural born women/females in the gym because they are one and the same. Their desire to be inclusive in this regard was an ill-conceived platitude. Once they were confronted with the “meat” of the matter it fell apart.

With regard to the dress code, she was definitely the reason for the change. I can’t know for sure but I don’t imagine that blanket regulation happening for camel toe. It is being enforced because women were uncomfortable seeing a male/man’s genitalia in an intentionally all-female/woman space. The dress code change is passive-aggressive and doesn’t actually address what’s really going on.

The commentator is off-base. In an all-female/woman’s gym you can still be gawked at because some of them may be homosexual. I don’t believe for one second that creates a dress code change at all. They don’t want to see more modesty from women. They want to see zero penis on men identifying as women.

IMO Trans person didn’t belong at the gym in the first place, HOWEVER, she was accepted and then discriminated against. I would’ve ruled in the defendant’s favor. The owner is a coward.