Men-only gyms: gender segregation returns

Separating gyms by sens: the proposal demanding a way forward

A man trains in concentration. A stranger stands directly in front of him and begins doing squats. He turns away to avoid having her in his line of sight. Minutes later, according to his own account, the woman comments to others that the man was looking at her and trinc her around the room. This anecdote, repeated in various accounts, fuels a proposal gaining adherents: opening men-only gyms and women-only gyms, separated by sens.

The trigger can be summarized in one sentence circulating among users: no man should suffer constant visual harassment. From there unfolds a familiar complaint. The mixed gym, it is argued, has become a showcase where part of the audience poses more than they train: machines occupied for twenty minutes without use, phones in hand, background music, and queues. The repeated conclusion: if exclusive centers for women already exist, there is no reason why male ones should not exist. Symmetry, they say, settles the matter.

What is being requested with men-only gyms?

What is being demanded is not just a venue. It is a way of training. Fewer interruptions, training partners who spot you to reach muscular failure, and healthy competition to see who pogre. This camaraderie, they argue, is the best stimulus for performance, far above any distraction. And a repeated request: let only the sound of weights and breathing be heard, without background music.

The ambitious version of the idea goes beyond the gym: a club with a sauna, thermal baths, library, and weight room, a refuge with its own rules. The basic version is content with not sharing a room with someone going for a photo. Between one and the other lies the same underlying premise: the gym as a space where the goal is to train, not to exhibit oneself.

The Gulf model: male and female branches

The most frequently cited reference is outside Europe. It is claimed that in Kuwait no gym is mixed: each chain has its male branch and its female branch, and both have clientele. Those who recount this claim to have trained in one with a private beach. The message extracted is that separation is not a laboratory experiment, but a functioning model.

The comparison extends to other countries in the region. In Saudi Arabia, it is said, women's gyms operate and have an audience. For those defending separation, this proves that demand exists when the product is well conceived. For those criticizing it, equating Spain with the Gulf is importing customs that do not fit the local market.

Women-only gyms: open and sometimes close

In Spain, separation already exists, albeit discreetly. The Curves chain is cited as a women-only center in Salamanca, open for years and without windows facing the street. Other gyms opt to split the day into shifts: women in the morning, men in the afternoon. It is not the same to divide rooms as to divide schedules, but the principle is identical.

International experience invites caution. A chain of gyms exclusively for women in Miami eventually closed, according to circulating accounts, because clients stopped coming. The repeated diagnosis: without an audience to see them, the business dies. No reassuring explanation is given, and the prediction is uncomfortable: if this happens with female centers, what guarantees that male ones will fill up?

From "he looked at me" to the accusation: the problem of civility

The squatting episode is not presented as an isolated case. At the heart of the matter lies a tension that no camera resolves: who invades whose space. There are testimonies of men who, they claim, were accused of looking or trinc when it was they who stepped aside. And there are complaints from women in the opposite direction. A room with mirrors, tight clothing, and phones is a breeding ground for misunderstandings.

Not everyone believes the solution is to separate by sens. Some argue that the problem is one of civility, not gender: someone who occupies a machine for half an hour with their phone would do the same in a segregated gym. From this perspective, separation shifts the conflict rather than resolving it, turning a lack of education into an identity issue.

The dismissive response to those requesting male spaces

When someone proposes a men-only gym, the most common reply does not discuss logistics. It questions the sensual orientation of the requester. This is a recurrent response, and it has its own counter-reply: it is argued that ridiculing those seeking a virile environment is an old maneuver, and that it points to certain male spaces escaping the control of those who seek to direct them.

The terrain becomes slippery. Some see it as a form of social censorship; others, as a simple joke elevated to doctrine. The fact is that the discussion heats up much more over the insult than over the catalog of machines or schedules. And in the midst of the noise, the fundamental question is lost: if the business exists, someone will open it.

Free time, membership fees, and business

There is a lateral argument not to be dismissed: time. It is recalled that those with children dedicate two or three hours daily to direct care, plus indirect care, and that this time is not recovered in a weight room. If separation by sens is proposed as a service, the question is for whom. Because the audience with the most free time may be precisely the one who requests it least.

And then there is the money. A men-only gym lives on the membership fees of its members, and its viability depends on filling the room daily. Neither formula has been tested on a large scale in Spain. With these premises, the most repeated prediction is that exclusive gyms for women will eventually empty, because, they say, no one goes if there is no one to see them. In the Gulf, separated rooms have queues. In Miami, the women-only gym closed due to lack of clients. The same formula, two opposite results, and no data to reconcile them.