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/

Absolutely. And you'd like to think that one big financial judgement would be enough to scare everybody into compliance.

I just think it's better to put the onus to do so on them before it gets to the point that a victim has to sue.

It's harder, practically, to enforce civil rights than criminal law. And it's not a given that a TW in a changing room is inherently committing voyeurism/indecent exposure, so I dont see the CPS taking an interest except in the most egregious of cases. In any case the TW doesn't even have to exist: it's the policy that creates the problem, by making women unwilling or unable to use the CR, once they realise men are allowed in.

I feel that the real problem right now is that the institutions are against us. As pointed out in the Darlington judgment, there are laws mandating single-sex provision on pain of criminal sanction, such as the Workplace Regulations (but also laws about prisons and schools). People could get fined, at least.

Yet, the institutions (eg ScotGov) are straining every sinew to continue to break these laws, as well as to ignore FWS by endorsing discriminatory practices, punishing anyone who complains, and hiding what is going on under weaselly language.

Southwark Council should be protecting all its residents' rights under EA2010. At the very least they should require their gyms to put up signs saying 'this is the women's changing room, but any man who wishes to use it may also do so'.

How did the institutions get so captured, when surveys tell us that fewer than 20% believe in this nonsense?

Where's your evidence of this particular hierarchy you cite? We all know that the law has sentencing guidelines in terms of seriousness but to make this particular claim about alcohol seems ... odd?

Personally I'd not make an argument that the crimes of trans sex offender Katie Dolatowski (who sexually asasaulted a young girl by going into a woman's toilets is lower on a hierarchy than selling alcohol to a 16 year old ... but you do you I suppose.

Right...it thinks one of them is so severe that it requires the state to step in and punish the offender, while the other it leaves for the victim to prove to a court that they've suffered a loss.

Someone getting undressed in a changing room is not automatically committing the offence of indecent exposure, even if there are opposite sex people in there.

Voyeurism also has a higher test in law than a man using a women's changing room.

In other words, if a man goes into a women's changing room and only uses it for the purpose of changing, he is not actually committing any criminal offences.

It's very far from clear that staff at a sports centre, for example, would be implicated in any criminal proceedings by way of allowing a man into the women's.

The organisation they work for however may be found liable under the EA per the SC ruling, because if they offer single sex spaces then they cannot encourage or direct members of the opposite sex into the wrong facilities.

The more court cases there are about this where the provider loses the less palatable breaching the law will be both to the provider and their insurers.

Lots of women at the centre told me they had complained (after seeing. man in female changing room), but "nothing ever changes" because they perceive the 'T' is elevated above any female.

Unfortunately if providers continue breaking the law with impunity there will be no effect on their insurers unless they are sued.

No. The inaction by everyone can only be explained if their core principle is: Do not make any man frown.
Otherwise, they would immediately have clarified the female changing rooms are for females only, and please come speak to management if you're not happy going in your sex's changing room and we will of course provide alternative changing space for you.

The EHRC has a long list of things, including that female-only and male-only changing rooms can legally exist and should be female- or male- only.

@StrongestWoman are you in WRN? The Southwark branch is quite active, and we're doing demos at all borough leisure centres. Message me if you like or contact me on Twitter?

Where's your evidence of this particular hierarchy you cite? We all know that the law has sentencing guidelines in terms of seriousness but to make this particular claim about alcohol seems ... odd?

A poster suggested that organizations would be breaking the law by breaching the new COP on single sex spaces. I asked if they would be treated as 'breaking the law' in the same way that a shop and it's staff who sell alcohol to someone underage would be (criminally) or if it would remain a civil matter.

I've not made any 'claim' about alcohol.

Personally I'd not make an argument that the crimes of trans sex offender Katie Dolatowski (who sexually asasaulted a young girl by going into a woman's toilets is lower on a hierarchy than selling alcohol to a 16 year old ... but you do you I suppose.

I mean I've done no such thing, obviously, and I'm genuinely confused as to how you've managed to reach such a ridiculous and offensive conclusion.

Read my posts back - I have been discussing the legal implications for organizations/service providers who don't comply with the incoming guidance. I wanted to know if the new COP would make them criminally responsible in any way. I was surprised that this doesn't appear to be the case, as it leaves us in the same situation as before - when this law is broken, it's left to the victim to pursue justice. I have suggested that making organizations and their staff criminally responsible would have a bigger impact on offences caused by this issue.

For you to accuse me of arguing that a sexual assault on a child is lower on a hierarchy that selling alcohol to a 16 year old is both completely untrue and extremely offensive.

More lots of words in the service of allowing men to access women’s single spaces, as per usual.

It might be that your post came across as minimising the issue, by comparing it to 16-year-olds drinking alcohol.

And identifying that it's not a criminal offence, it's civil offence.

It's a similar argument used by TRAs to minimise the entire problem.

Not to mention governments, the police, the NHS, and countless other organisations, who don't seem to understand it's actually the law, albeit discrimination law.

You said:
"..the government thinks that selling alcohol to a 16 year old is higher up on it than an organisation and it's employees failing to enforce the legal requirements of their single-sex spaces". You've mentioned it repeatedly?

That's where I saw your notion of a hierarchy and challenged it with the consequences of your "ideas".

If you've read...

"Are we going to impose criminal liability on organizations who don't enforce the new Govt guidance on single-sex spaces?"

No

"I think we should, rather than leaving any legal repercussions as the responsibility of the victims to pursue"

...as being words in the service of allowing men to access women’s single spaces, I genuinely don't know what to say to you.

Respectfully, as it appears that a number of posters fail to understand your intentions / beliefs from the words in your numerous posts, it might be worth reviewing how you communicate on here?
Just a thought as I'd be re evaluating if I got such consistent "misunderstandings" in responses to my posts.

It might be that your post came across as minimising the issue, by comparing it to 16-year-olds drinking alcohol.

Except I didn't compare it to sixteen year olds drinking, I asked if breaking this law was going to be enforced in the same way as breaking the laws surrounding selling alcohol to minors.

And identifying that it's not a criminal offence, it's civil offence.

Look back through the thread. I think at least two posters identified it as such before I did, and they did so in response to me asking about it. So no, I did not identify it as such.

And even if I did, it doesn't give someone the right to accuse me of making arguments lessening the severity of child sex offences.

It’s obfuscation, obfuscation, obfuscation.

The issue is that a woman has been penalised for objecting to men in single sex women’s spaces.

I think you were a lot clearer in your subsequent posts.

People are instantly very cynical about certain arguments. Even the smidgen of a hint of a whiff of them.

But additionally, you'd be surprised how many posters play the long game, coming across as neutral, or even pro women, and then pages later it's a very different story.

It makes one a bit trigger happy.

Considering Stonewall got everyone to buy into their fictional version of the law solely on the grounds that the 'Equality Act says so, and you'll get sued', I don't see why the actual and legally provable fact of legal liability for sueing should be any less scary. Or effective.

You said:
"..the government thinks that selling alcohol to a 16 year old is higher up on it than an organisation and it's employees failing to enforce the legal requirements of their single-sex spaces".

What claim are you suggesting I've made? It's a fact that one of those things is considered serious enough for the state to prosecute and the other is not.

That's where I saw your notion of a hierarchy and challenged it with the consequences of your "ideas".

Please explain how our legal system is 'my notion of a hierarchy'? Our legal system is literally a hierarchy of increasingly powerful courts that deal with increasingly serious matters.

And you didn't challenge anything, you suggested that I would or had made the argument that the sexual assault of a child would be lower on a hierarchy of wrongdoing that selling alcohol to a 16 year old. Completely uncalled for.

If I misunderstood your comments then I am happy to accept that you were commenting about the government's priorities and that your comments above did not reflect your own views and apologise for misinterpreting them..

I am always concerned about posts that appear to ignore / minimise the safeguarding threats to women and girls from the presence of men in women's single sex spaces. As @Datun said upthread, I admit to having limited patience if I perceive such comments. So could be fairly accused of being "trigger happy"

Hope that resolves this. Re your other questions, I'm afraid not going to contribute to derailing someone else's important thread by engaging in interminable to and fro exchanges.

I would prefer if "Entering a toilet of the opposite sex" were not a criminal offence but it could be decriminalised like council parking or littering then we could have overenthusiastic enforcement by outsourced enforcement officers on a bonus for each ticket issued.

I am always concerned about posts that appear to ignore / minimise the safeguarding threats to women and girls from the presence of men in women's single sex spaces.

And I've learnt, from experience, that nine times out of ten, it's correct to be.

The number of occasions where someone is coming across as reasonable, fully on side, and then bit by bit the mask drops, until it comes off altogether. Sometimes rather spectacularly, in a burst of women hating fireworks.

Personally, for me, the most tricky posts are those where I'm really not sure if someone is genuinely unaware, and just asking questions, or being manipulative in order to exercise their agenda.

Because, in the first instance, I really want to help, but in the second, if I think the mask is going to go, I want to expedite it.

*Kimura *made an approving emoji on my 'trigger happy' post above. So I think she gets the balancing act that we all make.

Of course, none of this should be this fricken difficult. But one thing's for sure, it's not the women's fault.