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/

The other women didn't say anything/were cool because we are programmed to not kick up a fuss

because she objected to a man in the women's changing room

She wasn't banned for 'objecting'. She was banned for how she behaved towards the person and the staff.

Or maybe they just didn't care? Not everyone does.

I misremembered the name: they were Man Friday.

Lots of threads on MN FWR/FSG, eg https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3261705-Turns-out-Hampstead-swimming-ponds-are-single-SEX-after-all?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

Here we go, saying the quiet bit out loud again. Standing up for women’s rights, for safeguarding, for following the law, for honesty and integrity, is bad behaviour. Women - know your place! You have all the rights you need: the right to be silent.

He shouldn't have been there. If she raised holy hell she had every right to.

Keep telling yourself that. The council can spin it whatever way they like. There is NO way for a woman to express her views in a situation like this without being accused of poor behaviour. It’s an excuse. They are pandering to a man’s wants over a woman’s safety, but rather than say it out loud, they blame her reaction. The minute she opened her mouth, she was wrong. Honestly, I could have written the script myself.

Where does it say that? Her 'behaviour' was simply objecting to a man in the women's changing room.

Or are you just saying that she wasn't 'nice' enough when she objected?

Women should always 'be kind', even when confronted with a voyeuristic male filming women in a women's changing room. If we're not kind enough to the perpetrator (and his supporters) when we complain, it's all our fault and we can expect to be punished.

She called a man a man and pointed out this was a female only area - so he is not legally able to be there (SC judgement TiMs are men). She sounds quite polite. I would also have objected, I hope. In my case I complained to the staff, who said there was nothing to be done as TiMs using female spaces was company policy (before the SC judgement). Not seen said TiM since SC judgement.

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.

Safeguarding is everybody’s responsibility. This appalling ideology has succeeded in inserting itself into public life and allowed men to invade women’s spaces only because people have been too frightened to speak up.

It absolutely was up to her. It shouldn’t have been, but she stepped up and did the right thing.

There is no suggestion that the police were called because she did anything actually wrong. The police themselves said so. The police were called because the leisure centre staff were too afraid of the entitled man and the entrenched anti-safeguarding, anti-inclusive culture to stand up to them and follow the law.

Isn't it wearying how those promoting the rights of creepy men to observe girls and women undressing always try to frame women objecting as the unreasonable ones.

Their determination to remove women's rights to autonomy, privacy and to stand up to potential flashers and voyeurs know no bounds. Like a Victorian gentleman insisting that "woman know thy place - ideally undressed in front of a random man" 🙄

I am curious as to why you are so intent on defending an abusive man that you would twist the facts to blame his victim?

How? By asking a question and then being falsely accused by the man ?

“Seconds after I’d started talking to him, suddenly, out of nowhere, he said, ‘I’m scared! You raised a fist at me! I’m calling the police, I’m getting the manager.’ While also recording video footage in a female changing room!

His own video footage would have attested that she was not violent or intimidating him. And obviously did considering the police declared there was nothing to the claim.

We have been repeatedly told in court cases that women are ‘not complaining therefore are accepting’. This woman had gone through the appropriate and official channels to complain with no result.

What exactly is the process that women who are concerned and distressed by this policy are now expected to follow? We cannot be heard in our complaints. Women are then demonised for going to court as well.

What is considered ‘acceptable’ behaviour when a woman is in this situation? It seems to be STFU.

Let me guess. The transwomen Kimura knows are lovely?

What also seems to be contradictory is that the gym ‘assesses’ the passing ability of these men? How the fuck do they do that? Do they get these men to stand there in their gym gear to be assessed? Do they ask a range of women to check?

“The next part of our conversation was jaw-dropping. She said that when it comes to trans people, they do a ‘visual assessment’ to make sure they look ‘enough’ like the sex they aspire to be.”

Or is the process that someone makes a very superficial judgement based on those men wearing everyday clothes? And that this is not monitored and reviewed even?

And that if that man turns up in tight gym gear and stubble, well, that is ok because upon joining the man ‘passed’ in some person’s eyes.

How fucking ridiculous is that process. It is fucked up.

I haven't defended them at all. Nor would I. Which of my posts do you think I defend them in?

I pointed out that she wasn't banned from the gyms for her objection, she was banned because of how she went about it. I certainly haven't blamed her for anything.

What is it about this subject on MN that anything other than nodding along is seen as taking the other side?

“One woman – possibly in her twenties – said she had no problem. There was another woman, standing in just a towel, who didn’t say anything.”

A point to remember. No female person can give consent for other female people for safeguarding decisions such as this.

The minimum bar to reach for strong safeguarding that establishes protection is if one woman does not consent, that is it. No male people given access.

Just because another female person says they don’t care, that doesn’t mean that male person should have access.

No female person should ever be put in a position where they have to make their own risk assessment of whether one male person is a risk versus another male person in the moment of observation. Nor should they be pressured directly nor indirectly in anyway to do this. This is completely unethical and harmful to female people.

I certainly haven't blamed her for anything.

You did:

It wasn't up to her to police the situation in person and drag people into a heated argument in public.

You are blaming her for not being 'nice' enough, when a man was in the women's changing room filming them.

What do you think she should have done?

If there were no staff in there, who do you think should 'police the situation'? It's not wrong to point out to the staff that there was a man in the women's changing room. It's not wrong to ask him to leave. The person in the wrong is the man who is a women's changing room.

And the staff are also in the wrong for allowing him to go in there.

Of course she was banned from the gyms for her objection, at least in part. She's accused of 'misgendering' him and objecting to a male in a female space.

You are blaming her for not being 'nice' enough, when a man was in the women's changing room filming them.

No, I'm not. I'm stating that she was banned as a result of her behavior, not her views.

What do you think she should have done?

Why do you assume I think she should have done anything differently? I have no issue with what she did at all.

But actions have consequences.

If there were no staff in there, who do you think should 'police the situation'?

There were staff there.

It's not wrong to point out to the staff that there was a man in the women's changing room.

I agree.

It's not wrong to ask him to leave.

Again, I agree, but ultimately it was the responsibility of the venue staff to deal with that situation, not her.

The situation escalated into a heated verbal altercation on a very emotive subject in the premises, shouting about surgery and ultimately the police having to put a stop to it. Take the subject matter out of it for a second; can you imagine any scenario in which a gym, shop or pub etc wouldn't ban someone for that?

She decided she wanted to have it out with this person, face to face, in public, at volume. Fine. The council decided they didn't want her doing that in their gyms.

Why do we need to pretend that she was banned for her views?

I have to agree. If you're causing a ruckus - even if you're absolutely in the right - to the point the police are called then I don't think it's surprising if you're told not to come back.

Being a gender critical feminist and being in the right doesn't mean you can start shouting the odds at people without consequence.

If she'd raised the issue with staff without starting an argument and then was banned, I would agree it was an overreach and without cause. When even she admits in the paper that "it got heated", I really have to question how much of this is on her.

This isn't about "tone". This isn't about "we must be kind". This is just about normal standards of public behaviour.

And no, that man shouldn't have been in the changing room either. Everyone here sounds like they're in the wrong one way or another.

Exactly how are women supposed to challenge men in their changing rooms 'correctly'? Remembering, for example, the fragrant Dr Upton who said something along the lines of it wouldn't have mattered what Sandie Peggie said, he wasn't moving. Men who behave the way these TiMs do aren't inclined to move to the correct changing room simply because a woman asks them nicely, just as establishments like Southwark aren't going to have an epiphany because a woman reminds them of the SC ruling with a please and thank you.

From the article it sounds like the man called the police because he was afraid of a woman 5” shorter than him who was holding earbuds in her hand.

But Miranda is to blame because she got upset and didn’t speak nicely enough.

She had already raised the issue through official channels and the council refused to follow the SC judgement.

The council put her in that situation.

It got heated because he started filming her in the female changing rooms and decided to then make a false accusation that she was about to be violent.

Why was he not banned as well for his part in this scenario?

Women are left to cope with being put in situations that cause them significant distress. And then punished for trying to get these male people to leave single sex provisions that they should not be put into. There is no symmetry in the repercussions these female people then experience.

This is a very concerning situation.