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

I watched the menno video about the protest today. Towards the end he interviewed Fiona McAnena who was wearing a cap with 'XX' embroidered on it. She said women had been wearing them to ParkRuns to show they understand biology or something like that.
Does anyone know where or how you can get them? I'd love a way to quietly demonstra te while out running, CLAW that I am.

• If your child doesn't look feminine, how will they 'prove' their sex?
• Do you have any butch friends? How will this impact them?
• What about butch looking women you don't know?

As soon as a woman opens her mouth it's obvious she's female. Anyway, butch women look like butch women, not like men.

SarkyMummy · 12/01/2026 16:29

I complained to Southwark and got this response. Looks like they are digging in:

They can deny wrongdoing until the cows come home, they're still clearly in breach of the law. The SC Judgment is clear; single sex spaces are exactly that and as tranw are men, they have no legitimate access to womens' single sex spaces.

They need to sack whoever gave them such poor legal advice, that its fine to ignore the law and let men, who try to pass themselves off as women, access to female SSS.

I’ve just sent a complaint to Southwark Council, quoting their standard ‘case closed’ letter as posted on this thread.

I concentrated on the legal side of things. Also their beauty parade whereby staff let the men who most ‘look like a woman’ enter the female single sex space.

I preempted some of their arguments, such as how do we know who are the men or the women. Apart from pointing out our split second assessment evolutionary skill, the 600 physiological differences between the 2 sexes & the fact it was never a problem before, I pointed out the obvious one in this case. The beauty parade. If they’re assessing whether the men ‘pass’ then they definitely know one thing - they’re a bloke.

I also included some of the great points made on this thread, such as how successful Sex Matters are and what a waste of taxpayers money it would be to fight the SC ruling.

I’ve asked them to explain why in the light of the SC ruling they are knowingly allowing males into female only spaces. I also pointed out the staggering irony that Miranda is banned and yet the men who pass their test are currently in their female changing rooms.

I also clarified the position on waiting for further guidance as set out by the SC, as I suspect this might be their excuse.

I’m intrigued to see their response.

As far as I remember when councils have been seriously challenged they’ve mostly settled or backed down before it got to court. Westminster Council for the social work case being one exception.

Or leaflet all the houses in the area around the gym.

Perhaps there needs to be some big ‘People of Southwark, your council wants to spend your council tax keeping men in women’s changing rooms’ poster campaign.
i would not be impressed with their priorities.

Agreed and of course should they go to court it’s also a shocking use of the council’s very limited money and people resource. If I were a Southwark resident I’d be very unhappy and would be looking to vote the current administration out.

Exactly. You only need to look at the way they approach SEND law to know that councils often don't really care about following the law if it's expensive or they think people won't follow through.

I've been involved with challenging councils in other areas of law. It's really not that unusual for local authorities to ignore bits of the law that they consider expensive or difficult to implement.

they work on the basis that most people give up at some point and the chances of it getting all the way to court are slim

i would say with these cases - big mistake!huge! As we've seen women are more than willing to go to court

'They' (Southwark Council) are made up of real people. Who are these individuals who have ALL agreed that the matter is closed and that they've not acted against the law?!

I'm staggered that there are a group of people prepared to say they've not acted against the law while the SC ruling is right there, in front of them?! 😳

Why must Sex Matters now take this on as yet another court case when it's all in black and white already; it's so wasteful of time, money and women's health. Fucking outrages me; I'm so sick of it.

Given the Supreme Court was quite clear that their ruling was on what the law always had been, it'll be interesting to see how that plays out.

I expect it'll be along the lines of "something something until EHRC issues guidance"

What I don’t get is why they think they can reasonably claim to have acted legally. I can only assume that they are trying to bluff through this in the hope that it will go away.

I sent a complaint to Southwark Council and have had the same response word for word. Disgraceful and illustrates they are not taking the issue seriously.

Of course Southwark Council “does not consider that it has acted unlawfully”, when they’re marking their own homework.

I got exactly the same response from Southwark Council so clearly a standard letter. I wonder how many they had to send out.

I'm sure they'd love the matter to be closed - but it's not theirs to close.

If the OP wants to take this further, I'll happily donate too.

Ooh, bring it on, Sex Matters! I’ll donate.

I complained to Southwark and got this response. Looks like they are digging in:

‘Southwark Council has already undertaken a full investigation into the incident referenced, in line with its established procedures. The Council does not accept the assertions made in your letter and does not consider that it has acted unlawfully.
^^
The Council does not comment on individual cases, particularly where matters have been misrepresented publicly. Any actions taken were based on evidence, were proportionate, and were consistent with Council policies and legal duties.
^^
The Council keeps all relevant policies under regular review to ensure they remain lawful and appropriate.
^^
We consider this matter closed.’

I was there too. The police, when asked if they could get the TRAs to turn their noise down, repeatedly made excuses.

If it sounded loud to us several feet away, it must have been horrendous for the people inside the centre.

Southwark Council in trouble.

Sex Matters

We were in Southwark today protesting against the council’s unlawful policy and the suspension of Miranda Newsom from her gym for complaining about a man in a women’s changing room.

Miranda Newsom is an ordinary woman. Like most women, she wants to be able to change with dignity and privacy. She does not expect to have to share this space with a man. This is not a difficult thing to ask for.

The trade union Unison is holding a counter-protest outside the leisure centre. Women who have turned up to support Miranda — and to defend their own sex-based rights — are facing further intimidation.

If Southwark wants to be the test case to try to overturn the Supreme Court judgment, we will see them in court.

Thanks again Miranda, and all the women who protested yesterday. I am sure any person attending the open day will have noticed the stark difference between the TRAs noisy and intimidating at the entrance of the gym and the women speaking.

It pretty much encapsulates the issue nicely.

”She didn’t say no”

Where have we heard that before?