Woman banned from Council gyms...guess why? Protest 10th Jan at 1 pm see post on pg.7

I have no issue with her behavior. I never claimed she was in the wrong.

Good to know that you weren't claiming she was in the wrong when you said this:
It wasn't up to her to police the situation in person and drag people into a heated argument in public.

So according to you it wasn't up to her to do this, but you don't think it was wrong for her to do this.

Glad we've cleared that up.

It's good that your posts are so clear that nobody could possibly misunderstand them.

@Kimura

The police 'had' to attend because someone reported that they were being threatened. Of course they 'had' to turn up. What else could they have done, ignored it just in case the caller was lying or exaggerating?

You're being disingenuous. You were using 'the police had to attend' to strongly imply the matter had to essentially be resolved and the argument broken up by the police. Hence you incorrectly saying the matter "ended" with the police being called.

Why are you suggesting that because I said the police had to attend that means a crime has been committed?

I wasn't suggesting that, you've misunderstood.

You don't get to decide if someone is lying or exaggerating about feeling threatened. If Miranda had called the police because she felt threatened, I guarantee you'd have no issue with me saying "Things got heated and the police had to attend". Or would you suggest that she was lying or exaggerating if the police didn't take further action?

There's an irony in you starting this paragraph by saying I don't get to decide if someone is lying or exaggerating but then stating you "guarantee" I'd have no issue with something. You don't know me. If Miranda had called the police and the police reacted in the same way as they did, and all the other facts were the same, I would still have had an issue with you saying the police had to attend and that is how it ended because it would have been factually incorrect.

Things got heated which resulted in the police attending - Is that better for you?

That is better thanks, although still doesn't make it clear that it was the TiM getting heated that resulted in him calling the police. If he'd told the police Miranda had threatened him, and they believed that, they'd have asked her about it. She's said here that they didn't.

No, she was banned because the council, who have a policy of allowing men to trample over the rights of women, have decided it's easier to take that action against one woman than it is to face the wrath of the TRAs and do the right and lawful thing.

And when there are people like you who'd rather shrug and claim that 'oh well, there must be Reasons and Things for her to be banned', rather than standing up and speaking out for the rights of women and girls, even after the woman has explained what actually happened, this will only continue.

The police were with me around 35 seconds. They didn't even want 'my side of the story'. They said "This was a waste of our time." I said "I didn't call you, sorry, he did." They said "Just stay away from each other in future, as you will never agree on this issue." They didn't offer any info on the gym's policy, whether it was legal, or their perspective on my actions at all.
Which leads me to believe they didn't think I had done anything wrong.

😂😂😂😂BRILLIANT!!! Are you on X? I'd love to follow you!! In fact, I'd buy a ticket to your West End comedy show!! :-)
😍😍😎😍

I have no issue with her behavior. I never claimed she was in the wrong. That doesn't change the fact that her behavior is what got her banned from the leisure center, not her views on the issue. I said exactly that in my original post and I'm saying it again now...how has my mind changed?

The problem with this topic on MN is that because I dared to say something which wasn't simply nodding along in absolute agreement, a bunch of you assumed I was on the 'wrong' side of the issue and started treating me as such.

I think this incident is serious enough as it is without having to misrepresent the facts of what happened. But for pointing that out I've been accused of saying and thinking all sorts 🤷🏻‍♂️

Things got heated after the man had called the police.

I suspect that the man identified as frightened, just like he identified as a woman.

Rather like Kimura appears to identify as supporting women’s human rights.

The police get to decide on hearing both sides if they “had” to be called and they said they shouldn’t have been.

Surely you can work out that this was in reference to policing a disagreement over a trans person being in a female space?

You're not seriously suggesting that the police said that someone who felt threatened shouldn't have called them?

Yes, obviously, if Miranda called the police and reported being threatened, I would say the police had to attend. Why wouldn't I?

The police 'had' to attend because someone reported that they were being threatened. Of course they 'had' to turn up. What else could they have done, ignored it just in case the caller was lying or exaggerating?

Why are you suggesting that because I said the police had to attend that means a crime has been committed?

You don't get to decide if someone is lying or exaggerating about feeling threatened. If Miranda had called the police because she felt threatened, I guarantee you'd have no issue with me saying "Things got heated and the police had to attend". Or would you suggest that she was lying or exaggerating if the police didn't take further action?

Things got heated which resulted in the police attending - Is that better for you?

When even the police haven't taken The Right Side of History, that is really saying something about the event in question. But, apparently, nobody can know for sure.

I do wonder @Kimura if it had been Miranda who had called the police, on the basis of feeling threatened that a man was in a women-only space, whether you’d still be saying the police “had” to be called…

“The police get to decide on hearing both sides if they “had” to be called and they said they shouldn’t have been.”

And if they said they shouldn’t have been, then that is a might strong indication that they believed it was a false allegation.

@Kimura “the woman”

Miranda is on here, as you mentioned above.

Seems a bit pointed that you don’t then use her real name or her MN username.

Re your last paragraph: conversely, only one person felt the police “had” to be called. Yet you are being led by that.

The police get to decide on hearing both sides if they “had” to be called and they said they shouldn’t have been.

I quite clearly used the situation as an illustration of such a policy.

Missed a bit:

I quite clearly used the situation as an illustration of the impacts of such a policy.

And the deliberate misrepresentation of fact by carefully chosen language to present the woman’s behaviour as wrong.

None of your post detracts from my point that the policy can be further the abuse of someone.

As you are being particularly pedantic here, maybe read my post again. I quite clearly used the situation as an illustration of such a policy.

The misgendering is also a concern because it is authoritarian in that it should not be considered a bannable offence to correctly sex someone, particularly when the sex of that person is the entire focus of the issue being discussed.

So I stand by my point that such a policy could be considered a continuation of abuse. By punishing a victim of abuse.

This thread has been so unexpectedly educational about The Right Side of History.

If you read the woman's posts on this thread, she say the council claims it banned her for a combination of things. The language she was using, the fact that incident went on for much longer than it needed to. Not just because because it got heated and the police were called.

Also, none of us have enough information to state unequivocally that the police were called on a 'false allegation'. If the trans person felt verbally or physically threatened at any point, they had every right to call the police. Now I highly doubt that this woman was about to start throwing punches, but that doesn't make it a false allegation.

It's absolutely possible that the call was made maliciously. Only one person knows for sure.

This is what you wrote.

Kimura · 26/12/2025 09:02
because she objected to a man in the women's changing room
She wasn't banned for 'objecting'. She was banned for how she behaved towards the person and the staff.

Kimura · 26/12/2025 15:17
In the article.
She admits herself that the exchange became heated and that police had to attend. It wasn't up to her to police the situation in person and drag people into a heated argument in public.

Those posts are an interesting way of expressing your opinion that you have "no issue" with how she behaved.

If you have changed your mind and no longer believe she was in the wrong, having read more about what actually happened, the best way to do this would be to say so, rather than deny that you said those things in the first place. We all make mistakes, and there's no shame involved in admitting your mistakes.

The debate became heated and the police had to attend. That's literally what happened.

No @Kimura that it is not literally what happened.

Where you’re going wrong is your use of “had”.

Once more for the cheap seats, as I and others including Miranda have made this point, the police did not have to attend.

They attended because the TiM called them. Because he lied or exaggerated about feeling threatened or because he thought Miranda was totally in the wrong to challenge him. The police disagreed that they “had” to have been called. They told Miranda, after speaking to the TiM first, that they shouldn’t have been called, that it wasn’t a matter for them. Presumably they also told the TiM and The Centre that. They spoke to Miranda for no more than a minute and didn’t tell her off at all.

We are all free to call the police whenever we want, especially using 101. Doesn’t mean that doing so and them turning up is never a waste of police time.

Can you admit now you’re wrong they “had” to turn up?

A council who has a policy of banning a person because an incident became ‘heated’ and ‘the police attended’ is one that supports the continuation of abuse, whether by intention or not.

As we can see here, a man called the police on a false allegation and caused distress to someone who then raised their voice in distress. If the council then bans the victim, this then is an abusive act towards the person who has had the police called falsely on them.

The situation with this policy, if it is a policy to ban someone for a heated discussion and police attendance, is even more concerning than merely banning for misgendering and approaching a male person who is in the female communal changing room.

I have said - repeatedly - on this thread that I have no issue with how she behaved.

No that’s not what the article says. It says the man called the police,

I never suggested otherwise? The debate became heated and the police had to attend. That's literally what happened.

and it says the police came and said there would be no action from them. Ergo the woman had done nothing wrong.

I didn't claim that the woman had done anything 'wrong', or - as you seem to be insinuating - that there was any justification for calling the police. I simply stated that it happened. Why do you seem so intent on suggesting otherwise?

Also a woman has every right to object to a man being in the women’s changing room.

I agree, and have never suggested otherwise. Again, what's your point?