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/

"That mild-mannered politeness costs nothing."

That is the thing that some people fully believe too. That mild-mannered politeness costs nothing.

Of course, the reality is "That mild-mannered politeness [may] costs nothing" ... to the person who is determined to be polite*." The politeness may cost others a great deal.

Exactly. Nodding along to trans women are women, lying to yourself and saying She when you see He. It’s doable in theory, or in a safe social setting, or when you’re having to attend your employers DEI training day.

But if you’re a nurse changing after your night shift, or a teenage girl in a swimsuit in a communal shower at the local pool it’s suddenly the stark reality - of a man where only a woman should be.

It’s an enormous cost, and one that only women are paying.

While this is true NeverOneBiscuit, it is also true that there are times when people are coerced into using this language in certain situations. That can be a hard situation to navigate, imo.

It’s not neutral to police your own language. Why do you think that you should do this?

People brought up my use of the word 'person' and neutral pronouns in this thread. I explained why I tend to use them in conversation. I've also used the term TiM to describe them at least once in this thread, and refered to them as a biological male.

I don't do it because I feel compelled to, or because I'm trying to make some kind of point under the table. I do it because I want to, because it makes sense to me.

And as above - given that the discussion here is about a biological male who identifies as a woman, claiming that said identification choice (not their biological sex) gives them the right to access a women's only space. I'd say referring to them as a trans person rather than just a man is more than reasonable in those circumstances.

Why should we pretend otherwise. Why should you pretend otherwise for this man?

I don't, and haven't suggested anyone else should, 'pretend' anything. They are a biological male, they shouldn't have been allowed in the women's changing room for that reason, and my choice to refer to them as a 'trans person' on an internet forum doesn't change any of that.

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?

As a blanket statement - Not at all.

I expect if they were in the room having this discussion with us they'd find it disrespectful, upsetting, etc if we constantly refered to them as a man (again, outside of their biology), so I, personally, wouldn't do it.

I don't feel the need to talk about someone differently just because they're not here.

I don't feel the need to join in the chorus of post after post taking particular care to mention that he's (!) a man, despite the fact that we all know it, and nobody is suggesting otherwise. I think after a point that does become deliberately disrespectful/antagonistic and used purely as a way of 'putting them in their place' and refusing to acknowledge their existence.

"I expect if they were in the room having this discussion with us they'd find it disrespectful, upsetting, etc if we constantly refered to them as a man (again, outside of their biology), so I, personally, wouldn't do it."

Why do you feel the need to give respect to a man who has shown he has no intention of respecting female people's needs to have a single sex space?

Just because the policy allows him to access that space, he could have chosen to respect female people - women and girls, but he chose not to.

Have you ever thought about why you feel this need to not upset a man who has made choices that cause female people harm?

"I think after a point that does become deliberately disrespectful/antagonistic and used purely as a way of 'putting them in their place' and refusing to acknowledge their existence."

And it can easily be pointed out that this man is putting women and girls 'in their place'. Yet, apparently, people, not just you, still feel the need to not upset him.

You might not “feel the need” to be truthful. I do.

This.

The manager seemed to accept that the policy has a foundation of fairy dust. At the end of the day, she is new and did not make this policy.
The council itself must be the focus. They make the policy, implemented in 8 centres across the borough.

It also costs us.
I am polite. I was raised in the American south, as a Mormon GIRL.
Sometimes I need to be more forthright, blunt and brave. Not couching everything in ‘inoffensive’ marshmallow coating.

Yes, there’s coercion in so many situations, you’re right. Which again plays into the ‘well nobody complains/disagrees’ argument.

If you’re on a training course with your boss & colleagues are you going to break ranks and refuse to use the opposite sex pronouns? Your right to chose your own words, and to be truthful is severely compromised. The cost of doing so in that moment could be too high.

'Peaking' is a journey not just a destination. I've looked back at my stops, it was like they happened to another person.

‘taking particular care to mention that (he’s!) a man’

No Kimura, nobody has to take particular care to ‘mention’ that he’s a man. We are talking about a man, in a woman’s space. We’re not lying to ourselves or others, we’re not worrying about being disrespectful or unkind, we’re just adults telling the truth.

You are the one taking particular care to not mention that he’s a man, apart from the odd occasion where to not do so would make you look obtuse.

If the conversation was about Isla Bryson, the convicted rapist, would you still be choosing to say/write trans, or they, or person or TIM? Would you centre him, try to avoid offending him? If reading ‘him’ in this paragraph makes you uncomfortable that’s your problem.

given that the discussion here is about a biological male who identifies as a woman, claiming that said identification choice (not their biological sex) gives them the right to access a women's only space. I'd say referring to them as a trans person rather than just a man is more than reasonable in those circumstances.

I’d say that to refer to a TIM as a trans person is highly unreasonable in those circumstances, particularly in those circumstances. Person/people is used when sex is unknown or irrelevant. In the case of a TIM in the women’s changing room, his sex is both known and highly relevant.

after a point that does become deliberately disrespectful/antagonistic and used purely as a way of 'putting them in their place' and refusing to acknowledge their existence.

Men, of any identification or none, who invade women’s spaces and try to control women absolutely need putting in their places: in the men’s spaces.

Of course we knew that they exist - they keep shoving themselves up our noses!

Why do you feel the need to give respect to a man who has shown he has no intention of respecting female people's needs to have a single sex space?

Because two wrongs don't make a right?

Because I'm an adult that doesn't need to resort to insults to get my point across? Especially ones that have the potential to be upsetting to far more people than just him.

Have you ever thought about why you feel this need to not upset a man who has made choices that cause female people harm?

I try my best not to upset anyone. I certainly wouldn't waste my energy going out of my way to do so intentionally.

And yet, your language choice does cause confusion in others.

So you have prioritised a male person’s needs over other people’s needs for clear and accurate language that doesn’t cause confusion.

It is, of course, your choice. But your reasons seem to be that you continue to prioritise the male person.

“Especially ones that have the potential to be upsetting to far more people than just him.”

Who else relevant to this discussion will this cause upset to? And what about the women your use of unclear language causes upset to? Do they get to be considered too?

Do you think the male in the women's changing rooms was upsetting women, because he was certainly upsetting Miranda, by merely being there, but didn't really care, because he felt entitled to be there, as evidenced by his hysterical outburst, feigning fear at a possible assault and then filming inside the women's changing rooms. Miranda was quite right to react as she did, because that male was posing a clear and obvious potential threat to any woman there.

‘because two wrongs don’t make a right.

seriously?

Well at least you’re continuing to confirm that a man shouldn’t be in the women’s facilities, that it is indeed wrong.

I’m amazed at your attempted balancing of the scales of fairness though. Man knowingly breaks the law and the social contract not to enter a women’s space. When rightly challenged he pretends to be scared - of what!? - & starts filming in a women’s changing room. Oh and of course calls the police.

But we must be fair, ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ ! There’s only one person in the wrong here - the boundary crossing man. Clearly being polite & kind to these men is your priority. Look where that’s got women in this ridiculous situation.

‘I try my best not to upset anyone.’

Well I’m sure you’re doing just fine with the men, probably not so good with the women.

No Kimura, nobody has to take particular care to ‘mention’ that he’s a man.

One person just said they feel the need to do it, and I've had multiple people feel the need to 'remind' me directly, despite the fact that I've never claimed otherwise. 🤷🏻‍♂️

We are talking about a man, in a woman’s space. We’re not lying to ourselves or others, we’re not worrying about being disrespectful or unkind, we’re just adults telling the truth.

Good for you. And me occasionally saying that I don't think that trans person should have been in a woman's space is different how?

You are the one taking particular care to not mention that he’s a man, apart from the odd occasion where to not do so would make you look obtuse.

Apart from the many, many times I've stated quite clearly that he's a biological male?

If the conversation was about Isla Bryson, the convicted rapist, would you still be choosing to say/write trans, or they, or person or TIM? Would you centre him, try to avoid offending him?

I'm not trying to center or not offend anybody. I simply don't feel the need to refer to a trans person in a way that is clearly offensive to all trans people.

If reading ‘him’ in this paragraph makes you uncomfortable that’s your problem.

See above.

@Kimura
Can you answer these questions?

Several of us have asked you similar questions about what the difference is between a genuine "transwoman" and any other man (including a man who is pretending to be a "transwoman"), and how you tell whether someone claiming to be a "transwoman" is genuine.

And does it even matter whether a man genuinely believes himself to be a "transwoman" or is just pretending, when they are all just men anyway?

What is the actual definition of a "transwoman"? Is it just any man who claims to be one or are there other criteria? If so, what?

@Cailin66 Why didn't you mention the first part of @Kimura 's post where they said @FirmaTerra was right and you were wrong? You're quick to point out Kimura's errors and wording. Be a fair player. Common decency to admit when you've fluffed it and say sorry to the person you put done with a firm 'nope'.

And yet, your language choice does cause confusion in others.

Only here, apparently, where people seem very confused that I hold the same views as them yet decline to use certain 'approved' terminology.

So you have prioritised a male person’s needs over other people’s needs for clear and accurate language that doesn’t cause confusion.

I think referring to one of the two people involved in this incident with female pronouns and the other as a trans person is pretty clear.

If you're in any way unclear about what I mean when I say "The trans woman shouldn't have been in the women's changing room" then I don't know what to say.

It is, of course, your choice. But your reasons seem to be that you continue to prioritise the male person.

Being comfortable expressing my opinion without having to say 'man' at every opportunity is not 'prioritising' anyone.

I'm agreeing with you, but it's not good enough because I haven't used the word man. (Even though I have acknowledged the fact, repeatedly)

Who else relevant to this discussion will this cause upset to?

I imagine it's pretty grim for any trans person to experience their community being reduced to the thing they've moved away from.

And what about the women your use of unclear language causes upset to? Do they get to be considered too?

I genuinely can't see how someone would be upset by me using words like 'person' or 'they' to describe somebody else who is transgender.

Would you feel it is the right thing to do to call my son my daughter in his and my presence? To say to me, in his presence, "Your daughter would like a cup of tea" rather than "Your son would like a cup of tea"?

Essentially, we have a choice between being offensive to those who believe in genderism and those who do not believe in genderism. So how do we balance those conflicting interests? I will admit that I thought we should be kind to those poor trans people, until I discovered the cost to me and my DW after our son said he was trans. So there was a big battle between my cognitive dissonance and my conscience, until I had actually thought through what was being demanded of us – that we should live the rest of our lives in a pretence and lie in order to make him "comfortable". I am now embarrassed at the lack of thought I had previously given to those who have good reason not to accept trans demands.

"Only here, apparently, where people seem very confused that I hold the same views as them yet decline to use certain 'approved' terminology."

Or maybe it causes confusion elsewhere but only here do people question you????

"I'm agreeing with you, but it's not good enough because I haven't used the word man. (Even though I have acknowledged the fact, repeatedly)"

I am just asking you questions about your choice of language, why you make the choice and who it benefits apart from you and the person you are talking about. See how that comes across as perhaps you drawing conclusions from posts that I might consider neutrally worded but you don't?

"I imagine it's pretty grim for any trans person to experience their community being reduced to the thing they've moved away from."

What other group's language demands about their philosophical belief that doesn't reflect material reality do you use even if you, personally, don't believe in that belief?

A person with a transgender identity has not 'moved away' from their sex. The English language uses sex categories and not 'gender identity' category. To communicate clearly and accurately, society should respect sex categories, otherwise the discussion gets confused and misinterpretations happen.

And as far as 'grim' is concerned, this is a philosophical belief that doesn't have any basis at all in material reality yet the language being demanded serves to mislead and obfuscate clarity. Just because someone doesn't want to hear that they a man or a woman when they are indeed a man or a woman, society should not have to use obscuring language to suit that particular person when sex matters. Using 'they' has caused confusion in this thread, some people have not been clear who you have referred to and have had to ask.

"I genuinely can't see how someone would be upset by me using words like 'person' or 'they' to describe somebody else who is transgender."

People have told you on this thread why clear language is important. Would you prefer it if we used the words : 'This upsets me because....'. Will that make any difference?

You genuinely can't see it, but others can and have been trying to explain to you.

Kimura:

It’s just a mystery, isn’t it? Men want to be something they can’t, and to appropriate language that doesn’t describe them. So language is mangled & changed.

Then here we are discussing something as fundamentally simple as men staying out of women’s changing rooms. But the argument is too stark if you just tell the truth. So some people, like you, have been persuaded to use words that don’t hurt men’s feelings. Including law breaking men who film in women’s changing rooms, pretending they’re scared & at risk of violence from a woman - a woman who is telling the truth - that a man is in the changing room.

It’s simple really.