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/

"Using 'they' has caused confusion in this thread, some people have not been clear who you have referred to and have had to ask."

Apologies, I mean 'people' not 'they'.

Although, looking back, there was an instance I was confused as to who would be justified in calling the police with the use of an ambiguous 'they' a couple of times. Whereas, I had to read the posts again to realise that it was not a reference to the organisation calling the police but the man. 'He' would have been immediately clear who was being referenced.

‘yet decline to use certain approved terminology’

This made me laugh. What, the ‘approved’ terminology of ‘man and ‘woman’ ?

And yet here you are using the approved terminology of the trans lobby. By your own admission you think not using ‘trans’ will offend this group of people.

So you’ve chosen. There we go.

Yep. It's that simple.

The urge to be kind, and to be thought of as kind by our peers, means many of us take quite a bit of time and go through many linguistic contortions before we finally get there.

"He's a man."

For instance, this is two sequential paragraphs in a post a few pages back where I really had to work out who was who.

"Who knows? Perhaps the behavior they described to the officers didn't meet the bar? Perhaps, having been removed from the conflict and calmed down, they'd realized they'd overreacted in the moment?"

"You don't know exactly what was said to whom. Miranda said they were told to stay away from eachother...if there's no accusation or evidence of a crime, what else needs to be said?"

Who is 'they' in the first paragraph? The organisation or the man?

And then who is 'they' in the second paragraph?

This was the text that was being commented on at the time:

"otherwise why didn't they ask Miranda about it AFTER having spoken to the TiM?"

There are several instances where I have had to recheck who was being discussed in other posts too because it could have been the organisation or it could have been the police, or it could have been the man. Whereas, usually clear language would have made it immediately apparent.

As many people will know, Kelly Jay Keen called out ‘He’s a man!’ at William (Lia) Thomas when he raced in the women’s category.

‘Them’s a they!’

’Thats a trans!’

That’s a person’

‘That’s a TIM!’

Funny how ‘He’s a man’’ was exactly the right word to use.

I think that many people who were still feeling compelled to use the demanded destabilised language that supported one group's beliefs over another group's changed their minds in 2025. Particularly, with the clear language that Naomi Cunningham used in the NHS Fife case.

When it came to being very clear who she was speaking about and the ramifications of using demanded destabilised language, I noticed a major shift in many of those people on social media who had berated the 'ultras' for refusing to use that demanded language. It certainly became clearer on MN when we could also use correct sex language to relay accurate information.

It is purely emotionally driven to use this demanded destabilised language. I have not seen a compelling argument yet that did not rely fully on emotional manipulation to support it. Because using wrong sex pronouns or using a singular plural when sex is already established as known is certainly not clear communication.Just like using generic terms such as 'people' or 'person' for someone where their sex is known is not the most precise language use. Nor is avoiding the use of the correct sex description of 'man' or 'woman'. I don't personally get to control how someone describes me, that is their choice.

It would be very controlling of me to demand to be known as or referred to something that I am materially not, or to hear something about myself that I don't want to hear even if it is a true reflection of my situation. Even if that term of reference caused me great pain to hear but is a neutral descriptor of my situation (I am not talking about a slur or derogatory language), it would be very controlling of me to demand someone use different language particularly if I was not present.

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"),

Nothing that you can measure.

and how you tell whether someone claiming to be a "transwoman" is genuine.

You can't.

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?

No.

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?

There isn't one.

Very pleased to receive an email from Sex Matters stating that they'll be attending the protest . Well done @MirandainSouthwark.

That's what we need - direct action shaming Councils and everyone else wedging men, voyeurs. flashers into spaces where women undress.

Most of the press are now reporting this intensively and the population are not pleased.

Not true that @Kimura caused confusion by using 'people'.
That confusion was manufactured by @Cailin66 saying that by 'people', Kimura meant the man. It was so obvious that Kimura didn't mean that.
When @FirmaTerra politely pointed this out, Caillin doubled down and went into depth with 'proof', which wasnt factually correct. Firma pointed that out, Caillin remained silent. Kimura confirmed Firma was correct and Caillin conveniently ignored all that and just used the reply by Kimura to have another dig at Kimura. The audacity Cailin didn't have the ovaries to admit they'd made a tit of themselves. So now you're conveniently using Cailin's error and ego to turn it against Kimura.

It's a common phenonemnon on the Feminsm board. Many posters geefully pile on and pick over wording by others who don't seem on the same side, yet don't have the courage or grace to admit themselves when they've got something wrong. @Cailin66 and others appear to just be posting for mutual validtion and a big circle jerk rather than to have a discussion. They won't acknowledge others outside their circle unless it's to tell them they're wrong. It's an attitude that's not going to win over people who are close to peaking or haven't peaked in the right way. People including would-be Terfs won't feel welcome to join in if they feel they're going to get pounced on for using the wrong word.

On the comment that 'two wrongs don't make a right', the issue is that it is not 'wrong' to use accurate and correct sex language.

That people have been conditioned to believe that it is 'wrong' to not acquiesce to a person's demand, or a group's demand to deliberately contort and destabilise language to suit their philosophical belief is not 'wrong'. This is where postmodernism and queer theory have created this emotionally manipulative situation.

It really isn't 'wrong' to not show a male person demanding that people don't use language based on his correct sex class for him. It is not 'punishing' him to refuse and to use the correct sexed language for him. It also doesn't really matter what that man has done or not.

Saying that two wrongs don't make a right, is a clear judgement being made about language usage.

As is this:

"Because I'm an adult that doesn't need to resort to insults to get my point across?"

The judgement is very clear that it is 'insulting' to use language that correctly describes the sex class and maturity of that human. In this case, a man. An adult human male.

I have written an email to Southwark Council to complain. Maybe anyone who cannot make the demo could think about doing something similar.

I was confused.

Good that you were not, but you have definitively stated that no one was and that is not correct.

"It's a common phenonemnon on the Feminsm board. Many posters geefully pile on and pick over wording by others who don't seem on the same side, yet don't have the courage or grace to admit themselves when they've got something wrong. Cailin and others appear to just be posting for mutual validtion and a big circle jerk rather than to have a discussion. They won't acknowledge others outside their circle unless it's to tell them they're wrong. It's an attitude that's not going to win over people who are close to peaking or haven't peaked in the right way. People including would-be Terfs won't feel welcome to join in if they feel they're going to get pounced on for using the wrong word."

The discussion is an important one about language and why people choose to use particular language.

If people choose to contribute to a thread, they should expect that people will interact with their posts and ask questions. If someone is not up to being asked questions about their opinions, perhaps a heavily moderated and closed group social media platform will be better for them.

Asking questions that mean a person thinks about aspects of the points of view that they support is part of posting on a discussion board surely? There is no group controlling who does and doesn't post on this board. Many of us simply are exploring each other's view points.

It is not a 'circle jerk' despite your assertion, posters are querying from different aspects and making different points.

The police didn't 'have' to attend - as they discovered when they got there. They weren't needed. You said that the council were justified in banning Miranda from the leisure centres because of the way she objected to a man in her changing room who filmed her, accused her of threatening him and unnecessarily called the police. They are not justified in banning her in these circumstances.

🤣 well that was an interesting and ironic deletion of Orwellian proportions! From memory it was a short post about ‘approved terminology.’ I thought the ‘I’m a man!’ one would trigger the button 🤷‍♀️

Cailin66 · 31/12/2025 11:37
She, herself, her for Miranda. “People” for the man.

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.
Show quote history
*
That's the exchange @Helleofabore Fair enough that you were confused, apologies for implying you weren't. But I stand by saying that @Cailin66 caused most of the confusion by confidently but wrongly asserting something when it at best it was ambiguous. Bit odd to automatically assume @Kimura meant the man when 'people' as in multiple others also works there!!

My main point though was that @Cailin66 didn't acknolwedge that she got it wrong and instead had a go at @FirmaTerra by saying the 'people' was used in reply to a quote it clearly wasn't. Cailin cocked up there, possibly got very confused herself, but then didn't apologise when it was shown to her by Firma that she had the wrong quote, or when @Kimura said she had meant 'people' as in multiple others.

Cailin was more bothered about her ego and not showing any 'weakness' by admitting she was wrong in any way, even though she was replying to someone who was clearly on the same side, that is @MirandainSouthwark 's friend, or alleged friend anyway lol as I haven't seen Miranda confirm it.

My 'circle jerk' comment was about Cailin only here and a few others I've seen elsewhere on the Feminism boards. You and others are indeed exploring others points of view. But exploration of language and discussion of views can't fully happen if people (Cailin) can't be bothered to confirm that yes, they made a mistake, sorry about the confusion by using the wrong quote.

Yes. I too was confused. As I said, great that you were not. But I was just as confused as Cailin seemed to be about the use of people / person. Just as I have been about 'they' being used, as I posted. In fact, I have had to reread some posts several times and back posts to establish whether I have correctly understood what has been posted.

I understand that some people feel the need to use this language, but it isn't without impact on other's ability to get the correct interpretation of what has and has not been written.

I have gone back and rechecked again and considering the use of them and they that has been confusing, I still think the use of ‘people’ could have been considered a plural use for a single person until the poster clarified.

This entire back and forth over the use of 'people' demonstrates how attempts to use activist language do sow confusion among us, whatever our position on these issues and our sincerity or otherwise.
For a while I though Sam Smith was the name of a band, because of the use of 'they' 🙄

@Cailin66 didn't seem confused though. She was categoric. Which is of course fine. Except when she was told she probably had the wrong end of the stick she adamently dismissed the person with a 'nope' and asserted that @Kimura definitely meant the man when Kimura used 'people', and gave a quote to prove it. Except it was a totally wrong quote. Cailin caused more confusion with that. And when it was shown she was wrong and Kimura confired it, Cailin didn't have the grace to even acknowledge that.

I imagine that if you'd been shown to have referred to the wrong quote when doubling down, you'd have acknowledged it. For one thing, it carries on and encourages conversation to admit mistakes, it gives the other side the space to do so to.

The back and forth wouldn't have continued much further if @Cailin66 , on checking the source, hadn't put a wrong quote as the source. That was a cock up.

This.

Ah, Sam Smith. I remember he said that on the days he most struggled with his weight, those were the days he felt like a woman 🙄

And a ‘fisherthem’, a job he imagined doing. Good luck in that pvc inflatable suit & heels!

'They' and 'them' are indeed confusing. Although there is polite precedent for using it to refer to a single person long before this trans-explosion.

Never heard 'people' used to refer to a singular trans or NB person. Unlike 'they' or 'them' with it's it polite precdent, 'people' has a very clear meaning of more than one person.

So I'm surprised at the confusion, particularly as @Kimura had been using 'the person' to mean the man before then. But fair enough. It was provocative though of @Cailin66 to categorically state that was how Kimura meant it though insead of asking Kimura. It's a combatitive stance that isn't conducive for open communication. And when you then double down and produce false evidence and don't say whoops sorry, it just makes you look like a tit. Which again isn't great for our GC side.

Thanks for the reply@Kimura.

So in summary:

Transwomen are men.
There's no way to distinguish a man who genuinely thinks he's a woman from one who's just pretending.
'Trans' is undefined and undefinable.

Therefore there's no reason to use anything other than male pronouns for a man who claims to be a "transwoman".