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

[lcakethereforeIam]

Those who guessed 'because she objected to a man in the women's changing room', give yourselves a pat on the back

https://archive.ph/wLUBN

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/23/council-gym-trans-row/

@MirandainSouthwark I’m too far away to join your protest but happy to sign a petition if you start one? I’m sure there are plenty of us that live at a distance but want to offer support that would sign.

Have you posted on X? I think you should and tweet JKR? I’m sure she’d be happy to help you get some justice with this.

It would be quite simple for a person to have a digital ID that identifies them as: Jane Jones, Female on the surface level, while still recording their legal status as a biological male in their medical records, which are only accessible with permission.

I suppose it will all depend on how big of an issue this becomes.

Great idea - let us know if people who live at a distance can support. I felt angry for days after reading this story.

Here’s a man claiming to be female identifying. But is just straightforward paedophile and voyeur.

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/paedophile-secretly-filmed-women-public-28737673

edited as forgot the link!

I find you to be disingenuous. It’s not neutral to police your own language. Why do you think that you should do this? You know he’s a man, Miranda, the other women semi dressed in the changing room and the staff all knew he was a man. Why should we pretend otherwise. Why should you pretend otherwise for this man? It’s the very crux of the matter.

This man has put himself into a women’s changing room where women and girls are semi naked or naked. He’s made women and girls feel unsafe. He’s now by his actions had Miranda banned. You can be certain other women will refuse to use that gym, and women like me would not allow my daughters to go there since I know those gyms are unsafe as they allow men into what are supposed to be our safe spaces.

Miranda was not confronted by a “they” or a “person”. She a woman was confronted by a man pretending to be a woman and asserting his right to be in a space for women.

Language needs to be clear, we are talking about safe spaces and safeguarding. Or do you not think so? You speak about you not being deliberately disrespectful or antagonistic. Does that mean then that the rest of us who refer to this man using male language are in your view deliberately disrespectful and antagonistic? Because that’s the clear inference of that comment.

I remember this. This wasn't a non-trans man (or even a trans person) claiming to have a legitimate right or reason to be in women's facilities.

He literally blurted 'I identify as a woman' out from behind a cubicle door - once - to police in a last ditch attempt not to get arrested, and was promptly ignored. He then immediately admitted that he was in there purely to take pictures of women.

Again, I'm not aware of any cases of non-trans men claiming they have any sort of right to use women's facilities, only trans people.

Kimura's 'politeness'...hmm...

He did try to claim the right, he said he identified as a woman and that’s why he was in there. I’m not sure what more you have to do to be a transwoman. I think we are supposed to take everyone at their word regardless of how they look or what crimes they have committed, is there more to it than that?

luckily the police ignored him, transphobes on this occasion.

At this gym, the manager told me the case-by-case basis is if the man “looks enough like” a woman. I said this man doesn’t look like a woman. She said “they have long hair.” I said some men have long hair. He does wear a ladies halter top. So I asked her about other permutations. Man with penectomy but obvious beard shadow, wearing a baggy t shirt. Looks like man? Or woman?
The rule is ridiculous. Only one of the trans-identified men at my gym looks remotely close to a (young and very fit) female (and he uses the disabled toilet).

Did that, thanks. MARTINA Navratilova has RT and Graham Linehan. Wow. And Tracy Edwards is speaking.

Fantastic example of the mangling of language. It’s men, in women’s spaces. Saying that isn’t unkind or disrespectful, it’s not a dog whistle or transphobic. It’s the truth, and if it offends anybody so what?

How do we keep out the men who are ‘just’ men, not those pretending to be women who we could call trans, or who might call themselves trans? Do we just use the leisure centre assessment of passing? But what if a man passes and is just your everyday predator, and not a real ‘trans person’ - who’s going to untangle that one?

It’s radical, but we could just say no to all men, and enforce the social contract that’s worked well for decades. And of course the law.

It’s not some existential problem that has to be grappled with, anybody with half a brain can see through the ‘person, trans, they, identify’ etc crap.

A man at the gym turnstile trying to look like his idea of a woman, uttering words to attempt to claim membership of the opposite sex. He’s the problem, he’s the one attempting to break the law, go where he knows he’s not welcome or allowed. I’m offended that he’s such an entitled, selfish misogynist, so am happy to offend him by telling him the truth, that he’s a man.

Why should any male person who so deliberately disrespects female people by entering into a female single sex changing room be respected in any way?

Why should that man have someone contort their language to use neutral or ‘respectful’ language? He has shown that he is fully willing to not respect any female person’s boundaries yet people choose to respect him still.

This really does show the level of conditioning that has already happened by a group of people who demand respect yet don’t respect others.

I wonder if this video from Amy Sousa helps those reading understand how this language control impacts how we view people.

x.com/knownheretic/status/1937252645267517802?s=46

x.com/knownheretic/status/2006188958586380420?s=46

I don’t believe there is one male person with a transgender identity in the UK who can claim right now that they do not realise that their presence in a female single sex provision (including sport ) will not cause a female person distress and /or discomfort, including having that female person potentially self exclude.

Those male people who use a transgender identity, which is only based on a philosophical belief that is not based on material reality to demand access to female single sex provisions are doing so for no one’s benefit except their own. When they make this demand they do this as a violation of a female person’s boundaries.

However, language demands are also violating other people’s boundaries too. It isn’t just physical presence.

For those at the back:

A male human who deliberately violates what is expected to be a female space, is by definition acting abusively towards the female humans in that space.

The Righteous inversion that the female humans' permitted perceptions and reactions should be subsumed to whatever the male human thinks or feels inside (or rather, what he says he thinks or feels) clearly demonstrates that The Righteous think the male human is the primary/only protagonist, and that the female humans are only partially-sentient support bipeds for the actual proper full person.

Female humans, in the Righteous view, are permitted partial sentience only because there has to be a handle by which to scold, nag, cajole and guilt them out of disrespectful and antagonistic behaviour and into providing service with sufficient glowing adoration towards the protagonist.

But how do you know this wasn’t a man claiming to be trans? What is the criteria for being trans?

“I’m offended that he’s such an entitled, selfish misogynist, so am happy to offend him by telling him the truth, that he’s a man.”

yep. And that someone cares so much about respecting his demands that they use destabilised language to suit him over the internet shows the power that he and others have. That power is not just in the language. It is in the fact that some people in society, such as the woman in that changing room that said ‘I don’t mind’, actually fully support that man’s philosophical belief about himself to then negate another female person’s consent to support him.

That is the outcome of what that woman who said she was fine with it has done. She gave permission (indirectly at first through non action but then directly when she replied she accepted his presence) that over rode the consent of other women and girls who were using or may use that changing room.

Here is a video that shows the impact on consent

x.com/knownheretic/status/2006208789578391667?s=46

“A male human who deliberately violates what is expected to be a female space, is by definition acting abusively towards the female humans in that space.”

This! Any male person above about the age of 8 years old is effectively committing an act of abuse by violating female people’s boundaries by simply being present in a female single sex provision.

Total respect to that trans identified man because he has respect for women by accepting his biology and respecting the needs of women and girls to their safe spaces. See how easy it is to be respectful and yet you’re the one banned.

You’ve been exceptionally kind too about the staff. I’ve changed my mind on that too. Anyone arguing that men with long hair is how we judge if a man passes as a woman is frankly ridiculous. Also a liar as they know plain as day he’s a man. That’s where this ideology is gaslighting us all. Hoodwinking us into kindness is what got us women in this mess in the first place. And the only one punished is polite you!

My 6’3” babyfaced ds wears a tight-fitting croptop to the gym because he has gynecomastia, which hurts when he exercises. He has to buy his croptops from women’s wear and remove the padding. He has lush, thick hair, which is often longer than mine. By these standards he should be directed to the women’s changing room.

What if he doesn’t want to go to the women’s changing room? (He definitely does not!)

This upsets me; women should not be doing this, men deserve their privacy and dignity in single sex spaces as well. Obviously the safety aspect is not there as men are stronger therefore that risk is minimised or in some cases non existent but it doesn't mean that men's rights to privacy when in toilets should be ignored.

This is a very clear video, thank you for posting. I'll be showing this to my be kind friend who scolded me for my lack of consent. As of course, she was "fine" with her male colleague in her single sex spaces.

It is.

Amy Sousa has been making very regular short videos that are quite useful in cutting through emotional responses that the repeated mantras based on a group’s philosophical belief about gender identity cause in themselves and others.

Given what you have said Kimura, could you please enlighten us as to the difference between a "non trans" man, a transwoman and a man, who is going about his everyday business, somehow managing to restrain himself from using women's sex based facilities? How do you tell the difference, between a non trans man in a skirt and a "genuine" transwoman? All the examples I have given are males, irrespective of how they identify and the Supreme Court ruling has instructed that none of those males has the right to be in a woman's safe space.

Remember, if a person says they are transgender, they are transgender.

It is not up to any other person to arbitrate whether a person is or is not transgender when they tell us they are. It is a good thing that the SC judgement made sure that we should understand that single sex provision is segregated by ‘sex’ and that gender identity doesn’t over ride that sex segregation. That way we don’t have to know any person’s gender identity. Just their sex.

Any person who seeks to ignore their sex category from safeguarding measures where single sex provisions exclude them is certainly not someone who is respectful of others.

If some people as we see regularly, wish to use language as a gesture of respect to someone’s philosophical belief, do they intend to respect even those who have shown no respect to others very clearly?

I always find this an interesting question as I don’t think people think it all through and they are just on automatic mode. That is the power of groups such as Stonewall in their success at making some
of society use this destabilised language. The goal of queer theory relies on this destabilisation. Look how far it got.

That is the power also of feminine socialisation: that mild-mannered politeness is essential. If women are not mild-mannered and polite, they will be disregarded as hysterical harpies. That mild-mannered politeness costs nothing.