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/

Hope that resolves this

Me too 😁

Women shouldn't have to be devoting time to clearing up misunderstandings, because every bloody bollocking person is ignoring the law.

(Discrimination law, in case that's not clear!!)

Thank you @Datun and @MrsOvertonsWindow for your replies, that meant a lot.

I will hold my hands up and say that there have been times I could have piped down but chose not to. I think a bit less typing and a bit more reading is in order on this kind of thread.

The debate upthread made me think a bit, about how much easier this would all be if it was covered by criminal law.

The argument is not strong for S158/9 or Schedules 9, 12, and 16, because nobody was ever put in physical danger by decisions made about things like public boards, college fellowships, exceptional admissions to single-sex colleges, and clubs and associations. The civil law is enough.

But the Schedule 3 single-sex exemption exists to mitigate physical danger as much as to enable fairness and privacy. So should service providers be criminally liable, if they provide a service that relies on the exemption, but do not ensure that it is single-sex?

An example would be admitting a transman to an all-male ward, or a transwoman to a domestic violence refuge. ETA or a gym changing room, of course.