Ah, okay. That's one problem with having a philosophy degree -- I couldn't see anything even remotely related to what we would call a formal fallacy in the statement. The point is that there are different perspectives for the people involved. And that creates competing requirements.
Mary, I think the point Joep made was the female's belief that she should be able to work out with anyone regardless of gender vs. the belief of the male that he can't work out with a female.
Another way to frame the discussion. Assume a strict Islamic training hall (doing whatever). All men. A woman insists on joining. Should the men be forced to train with the woman? Assuming this is a private venture then I see no reason why they can't train the way they choose -- I would argue the woman has simply gone to the wrong place to train. Those men have every right to have their own private club to train in the way they see fit.
There is a "women only" health club just a mile from my house. Should I raise a stink because there aren't any other health clubs closer that I can go to?
In cases of competing, mutually exclusive moral imperatives it is virtually impossible to logically resolve some issues without judging that one position is somehow "more correct" than another. Absent that you're left with what I posted before -- your freedom ends at the tip of my nose. Don't walk into my house with dirty shoes and I won't slaughter that baby seal in yours... :
(I never should have used that example -- it's gonna stay with me forever I think...)