Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Looking for a gym with female-only changing rooms by sex: a journey

330 replies

2021x · 11/05/2026 00:16

I am trying to find a gym in my city (not UK) that excludes males from the female showering and changing rooms.

I was in my gym and there was a man in the changing room- no attempt to be female other than a sports-bra- and since then I was just stressed everytime I went.

I have emailed a gym who say they are trans-inclusive on a case by case basis and said I should use the accessiblity changing room if I am uncomfortable.

I have also put up a post on Reddit in the local page - that got auto-moderated, and then the same post on the national page that is going through normal moderation.

My post says this

I am looking for XXXX gyms that have female‑only changing and shower areas that are restricted by sex, not self‑identified gender.

I’m comfortable sharing these spaces with other females, but I’m not comfortable changing or showering in areas where males may be present.

If you know of any gyms in XXXX please sent me a direct message.

Wish me luck.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Thread gallery
7
2021x · 17/05/2026 02:12

ProfessorBinturong · 17/05/2026 02:08

Case-by-case is routinely misapplied. In the legislation it means setting-by-setting or situation-by-situation (Should the changing rooms be single sex?), not person-by-person (Should Keith be allowed into the women's changing room?).

Thats an interesting point thank you- I will check with people who know the legislation where I am at.

I was trying to say that gyms are not equipped with the skill to assess whether a male is a risk to females. This is part of a pattern where on big societal issues the risk and onus is being delgated to individuals rather than government policy makers. which in this case is causes harm to women.

OP posts:
ProfessorBinturong · 17/05/2026 02:08

Case-by-case is routinely misapplied. In the legislation it means setting-by-setting or situation-by-situation (Should the changing rooms be single sex?), not person-by-person (Should Keith be allowed into the women's changing room?).

2021x · 17/05/2026 02:02

UPDATE.

I kept getting the same response which was "case by case basis". I looked into it futher and the Human Rights Commission has said that this is the preferred response to avoid a discrimination suit.

So I have sent the below email (AI aided)

I am writing to raise concerns about the lack of gym facilities in XXXX that provide female‑only changing rooms based on sex. I have been unable to find a gym that can guarantee that only females will be present in the female changing area, and this has significantly affected my ability to safely access exercise facilities.

In November 2024, while using the XXX (gym), a male individual entered the female changing room while I was undressing. My immediate response was to freeze, and I felt genuinely scared. The individual stood directly behind me to change, despite the availability of space elsewhere in the room. After this incident, I reviewed (gym) publicly available policies and found no indication that males would be permitted to enter the female changing room. I contacted the gym for clarification, and their response is attached.

I asked (gym) to notify female members that males may be permitted to use the female changing room so that women could make informed decisions about their privacy and safety. No such communication was provided. As a result, I became increasingly distressed when attending the gym and ultimately cancelled my membership this year.

My personal experiences — both in public settings and in my professional work in healthcare — have taught me that sex‑based boundaries exist for important reasons, including privacy, dignity, and safety. These experiences mean that access to a female‑only space is essential for me to feel safe when removing my clothing, particularly underwear.

Since leaving (gym), I have contacted several other gyms inXXX. All have provided similar responses: that access to changing rooms is determined by gender identity rather than sex, assessed on a case‑by‑case basis. In practice, this means there is no consistent or predictable standard for who may be present in the female changing room at any given time. This places the responsibility for managing risk onto individual women, while also exposing gyms to potential liability if an incident such as an assault or privacy breach were to occur. Because of this approach, I cannot access a gym that provides a reliably female‑only changing space. I believe this amounts to indirect discrimination, as a policy that appears neutral in theory disproportionately disadvantages women like me who, for safety, privacy, or trauma‑related reasons, cannot undress in front of males.

From my research, it appears that many gyms are relying on advice from the Human Rights Commission, which suggests that to avoid discrimination they should allow access to facilities based on gender identity. However, this advice does not consider the importance of sex‑based boundaries for women’s privacy and safety, nor does it consider the rights of female gym members to bodily privacy and informed consent. It also places males who use female facilities at risk of being accused of exposure or inappropriate behaviour in situations where they may simply be changing.

I am requesting clarity on how this issue is being interpreted, and whether guidance can be updated to ensure that service providers can offer sex‑based facilities without fear of breaching discrimination law. Women should not be placed in a position where they must choose between their personal safety and their ability to access a gym.

I would appreciate your advice on how this matter can be addressed so that women in XXXX can access female‑only changing rooms without distress or risk.

I have also sent an abridge copy to my local MP - who unfortunately campainged on gender identity overruling sex - and CC the minister trying to bring a bill to establish definitions of sex.

My plan is to wait for 20 working days and follow up, then if not reply 10 working days, 5 working days etc..

OP posts:
MyAmpleSheep · 15/05/2026 13:51

onepostwonder · 14/05/2026 22:29

A clarification is a minor edit, specifying clarity. The new revision is an entire rewrite.

A clarifiation is a clarification. If the original interpretation is close to correct then a clarification is a minor change. If people's original interpretation is 180° wrong then the results of the clarification can be severe. It's still a clarification.

Keeptoiletssafe · 15/05/2026 13:12

onepostwonder · 14/05/2026 22:29

A clarification is a minor edit, specifying clarity. The new revision is an entire rewrite.

You don’t listen to what I have been telling you. If you look at UK (I don’t know which country you are from) building control, regulations and legislation, words such as women, men, separate sex, single sex, unisex, universal, are stated many, many times. It changes design if you don’t conform to proper definitions. We have had these definitions confirmed. We have had the legalities confirmed. Single sex spaces are single sex spaces.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 15/05/2026 08:38

ProfessorBinturong · 15/05/2026 08:12

I used to frequent a forum that had an 'ignore poster' option, so you saw only the line 'Post by ignored user' instead of swathes of circumlocutory nonsense. Very useful.

Edited

Wasn't there one of these on Mumsnet some years ago? Tbh, I'd rarely use it as it's important to read all opinions.
But every now and again there'll be a poster who uses Mumsnet & the women on it for their own entertainment and perhaps to fill what's missing in their own sad lives. I might use it for them?

Women share so many wise and intelligent thoughts on here that it'd be far more enjoyable to follow those without having to wade through tedious, self absorbed nonsense.

ProfessorBinturong · 15/05/2026 08:12

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 14/05/2026 23:37

Mumsnet needs a Mute button for them.

I used to frequent a forum that had an 'ignore poster' option, so you saw only the line 'Post by ignored user' instead of swathes of circumlocutory nonsense. Very useful.

Datun · 15/05/2026 07:57

Wearenotborg · 14/05/2026 23:13

I mean, if all a bloke can think of to do is come on a feminist board and try to argue with women and get his arse handed to him again and again, bless his little cotton socks, he must have a sad, lonely life. This is in general and not a comment on any particular poster of course.

And it happens, with monotonous regularity, day in, day out. And they're all the same. And none of them realise they're exactly the same as the ones before and the ones after.

I wonder how many women go onto male websites and lecture men about being men and pontificate about why her personal existential crisis trumps everything.

MyAmpleSheep · 15/05/2026 01:00

onepostwonder · 14/05/2026 23:04

I don't believe it (eta: the substantial modification warranted by FWS) was mere coincidence, no.

Edited

Wait, what?

Tell me more about your theory - I smell a conspiracy being claimed.

murasaki · 14/05/2026 23:42

Wearenotborg · 14/05/2026 23:34

Me neither. I think it’s just best to ignore the me-railers. I’ve had experience of being lectured for hours by a TIM, so now I can just blank it out.

If i want to be lectured by a man, I'll phone my dad. At least he's well informed and amusing while doing it.

This one is none of those things.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 14/05/2026 23:37

Wearenotborg · 14/05/2026 23:34

Me neither. I think it’s just best to ignore the me-railers. I’ve had experience of being lectured for hours by a TIM, so now I can just blank it out.

Mumsnet needs a Mute button for them.

onepostwonder · 14/05/2026 23:35

Wearenotborg · 14/05/2026 23:25

Don’t a lot of trans identified males have a thing about being humiliated and degraded? I know some of my ex’s friends were really into that and would deliberately do stuff to get humiliated in public.

Edited

Again with the invention of motivations in others. Is this the key that binds all sex realists?

Wearenotborg · 14/05/2026 23:34

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 14/05/2026 23:26

🤮 Disengaging. I don't consent to being someone's wank fodder.

Me neither. I think it’s just best to ignore the me-railers. I’ve had experience of being lectured for hours by a TIM, so now I can just blank it out.

onepostwonder · 14/05/2026 23:32

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 14/05/2026 23:23

Again: All of this whatabouttery concerning entities that aren't Parliament is not refuting the unanimous ruling of the SC judges that there is no other legally-coherent way to interpret the Equality Act. That EHRC got that wrong so soon after the law was passed doesn't change that there is no other legally-coherent way to interpret the Equality Act.

There's no whatabouttery. The entire topic of the speech I quoted above was "Judicial Law-making in the Common Law Tradition."

https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/speech_191028_a541d2331c.pdf

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 14/05/2026 23:26

murasaki · 14/05/2026 23:23

Some sort of masochistic streak, I imagine.

🤮 Disengaging. I don't consent to being someone's wank fodder.

Wearenotborg · 14/05/2026 23:25

murasaki · 14/05/2026 23:23

Some sort of masochistic streak, I imagine.

Don’t a lot of trans identified males have a thing about being humiliated and degraded? I know some of my ex’s friends were really into that and would deliberately do stuff to get humiliated in public.

murasaki · 14/05/2026 23:23

Some sort of masochistic streak, I imagine.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 14/05/2026 23:23

onepostwonder · 14/05/2026 23:04

I don't believe it (eta: the substantial modification warranted by FWS) was mere coincidence, no.

Edited

Again: All of this whatabouttery concerning entities that aren't Parliament is not refuting the unanimous ruling of the SC judges that there is no other legally-coherent way to interpret the Equality Act. That EHRC got that wrong so soon after the law was passed doesn't change that there is no other legally-coherent way to interpret the Equality Act.

Wearenotborg · 14/05/2026 23:22

murasaki · 14/05/2026 23:20

I do wonder why he's here, it's not exactly going well for him.

True. In a battle of wits, he’s kind of brought a pencil to a tank battle. Poor poor boy. Spectacularly under armed 😀

murasaki · 14/05/2026 23:20

Wearenotborg · 14/05/2026 23:13

I mean, if all a bloke can think of to do is come on a feminist board and try to argue with women and get his arse handed to him again and again, bless his little cotton socks, he must have a sad, lonely life. This is in general and not a comment on any particular poster of course.

I do wonder why he's here, it's not exactly going well for him.

Wearenotborg · 14/05/2026 23:13

Datun · 14/05/2026 17:43

Your belief in the law looks to be as subjective in reality as some of your other beliefs.

I don't (can't), believe that someone could really not understand what is going on to this extent.

I'd blame their own personal echo chamber, but that poster is on here all the damn time. They must know that the law is the law and that's the end of it.

Who are they holding out for? GLP?

I'd think it was sad, if they didn't fuck everybody off so much.

Edited

I mean, if all a bloke can think of to do is come on a feminist board and try to argue with women and get his arse handed to him again and again, bless his little cotton socks, he must have a sad, lonely life. This is in general and not a comment on any particular poster of course.

onepostwonder · 14/05/2026 23:04

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 14/05/2026 23:02

The "Code of Practice for services and public functions" is 15 years old and was published less than two years after EA was given Royal Assent. There were few, if any, court rulings om EA in those two years and little real-life experience of running services under the new law.

Do you really think that FWS is the only ruling informing that rewrite?

Do you think that 15 years experience of applying that law "on the ground" might perhaps also have informed the new guidance?

All of this whatabouttery concerning entities that aren't Parliament is not refuting the unanimous ruling of the SC judges that there is no other legally-coherent way to interpret the Equality Act. That EHRC got that wrong so soon after the law was passed doesn't change that there is no other legally-coherent way to interpret the Equality Act.

Edited

I don't believe it (eta: the substantial modification warranted by FWS) was mere coincidence, no.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 14/05/2026 23:02

onepostwonder · 14/05/2026 22:29

A clarification is a minor edit, specifying clarity. The new revision is an entire rewrite.

The "Code of Practice for services and public functions" is 15 years old and was published less than two years after EA was given Royal Assent. There were few, if any, court rulings om EA in those two years and little real-life experience of running services under the new law.

Do you really think that FWS is the only ruling informing that rewrite?

Do you think that 15 years experience of applying that law "on the ground" might perhaps also have informed the new guidance?

All of this whatabouttery concerning entities that aren't Parliament is not refuting the unanimous ruling of the SC judges that there is no other legally-coherent way to interpret the Equality Act. That EHRC got that wrong so soon after the law was passed doesn't change that there is no other legally-coherent way to interpret the Equality Act.

onepostwonder · 14/05/2026 22:29

Datun · 14/05/2026 22:28

It's not a new interpretation. It's a clarification.

The terms men and women always meant biology.

Nobody was ever in any doubt, whatsoever, that men were not allowed in women spaces, until Stonewall decided to set out a new grift.

I will never stop being gobsmacked that professional people, high up in all sorts of organisations, paid an extraordinary amount of money to a company telling them a load of unlawful bollocks, in order to be awarded gold stars by that same company!

As rackets go, it's unrivalled.

A clarification is a minor edit, specifying clarity. The new revision is an entire rewrite.

Datun · 14/05/2026 22:28

onepostwonder · 14/05/2026 22:21

The EHRC has effectively recreated its guidance in this area due to the FWS decision. From the early revision, I would say that it was a massive change in interpretation. The EHRC is not Stonewall, nor was it representing Stonewall.

Edited

It's not a new interpretation. It's a clarification.

The terms men and women always meant biology.

Nobody was ever in any doubt, whatsoever, that men were not allowed in women spaces, until Stonewall decided to set out a new grift.

I will never stop being gobsmacked that professional people, high up in all sorts of organisations, paid an extraordinary amount of money to a company telling them a load of unlawful bollocks, in order to be awarded gold stars by that same company!

As rackets go, it's unrivalled.