The article about Tish Hyman’s revoked gym membership has sparked heated discussions surrounding gender identity, inclusivity, and the safety and comfort of women in gender-segregated facilities. Many users flagged this article due to concerns that gyms might now prioritize inclusivity policies at the expense of women’s peace of mind and protection. This fact check addresses whether the reported incident truly reflects a wider trend and evaluates the key claims presented in the article.
California has long been at the forefront of enacting legislation that protects individuals from discrimination based on gender identity in public spaces and businesses. The Unruh Civil Rights Act and related California laws guarantee individuals’ rights to access facilities like locker rooms or bathrooms aligning with their self-identified gender. Legal actions, such as the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing’s 2018 case against Crunch Fitness, have set precedent, requiring gyms to respect these rights and update their anti-discrimination policies. In this landscape, debates continue regarding how businesses uphold inclusivity while safeguarding the comfort and safety of all patrons—a theme central to recent controversies involving gyms and their locker room policies.
Claim #1: Tish Hyman’s gym membership was revoked after she objected to a man repeatedly entering the women’s locker room.
The article centers on Tish Hyman’s account, stating, “Tish Hyman posted a video on social media showing a confrontation… Hyman says multiple women filed complaints, but nothing changed,” and later, “they turned around and terminated my membership too, as if I was being punished for speaking up.” However, based on available research and public records as of November 5, 2025, there are no corroborating reports from multiple independent sources confirming that Hyman’s membership was actually revoked due to her complaint. While her personal account has been widely shared, without additional independent confirmation or a statement from the gym, this claim remains unverified. Insufficient evidence.
Claim #2: Multiple women filed complaints about a man entering the women’s locker room, but the gym staff did nothing.
The article states: “Multiple women and I have repeatedly made written reports on this man for coming into our women’s locker room harassing us, and the gym staff has done absolutely nothing!” Our research indicates California law requires gyms to allow individuals to use facilities aligning with their self-declared gender identity. ([ACLU SoCal Know Your Rights](https://www.aclusocal.org/en/know-your-rights/restrooms?utm_source=openai)) However, there is no independently verified information about the gym’s specific response or lack thereof to these complaints. As such, whether staff “did nothing” cannot be firmly established—insufficient evidence to verify or refute this claim beyond the statements made by Hyman.
Claim #3: Under California law, individuals are allowed to use restrooms and locker rooms that align with their self-declared gender identity.
This is accurate. According to the California Department of Justice, “You have the right to use the restroom consistent with your gender identity… both in public settings, like schools, and at your workplace.” ([oag.ca.gov](https://oag.ca.gov/lgbtq/rights?utm_source=openai)) This legal framework is part of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in business establishments, including gyms, based on gender identity or expression.
Claim #4: Gold’s Gym Beverly Center was acquired by EōS Fitness last week.
The article asserts: “Gold’s Gym Beverly Center, where the incident occurred, was acquired by EōS Fitness last week.” Despite this statement, as of November 5, 2025, there are no publicly available reports or independently verifiable announcements confirming such an acquisition. The claim is not corroborated by any major news outlets or company press releases. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.
The central claims in the article paint a picture of tension between inclusivity mandates and women’s comfort and safety in gyms. California’s laws do unequivocally support the right of transgender individuals to use facilities that match their gender identity—this aspect of the article is confirmed. However, the statements regarding the revocation of Tish Hyman’s membership, the gym ignoring repeated complaints, and a recent acquisition lack sufficient independent evidence, relying primarily on personal testimonies and unverified reports. Readers should note that while the experience recounted taps into real challenges faced by both women and transgender individuals in shared spaces, the article presents certain details without the robust verification expected in in-depth reporting. It is essential for readers to approach such articles critically, seeking multiple perspectives and documented facts before forming conclusions on high-stakes policies.
Want to check the facts behind more headlines? Join a community fighting back against misinformation—Download the DBUNK App for free today.
