Page 6 | Woman banned from Council gyms...guess why? Protest 10th Jan at 1 pm see post on pg.7

lcakethereforeIam · 2025-12-24T11:09:54+00:00

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://archive.ph/wLUBN]] [[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/23/council-gym-trans-row https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/23/council-gym-trans-row/]]

SirChenjins · 30/12/2025 10:25

Kimura · 30/12/2025 09:08

No, I didn't miss any of those things. What's your point?

Show quote history

And despite all that, you still blamed the woman.

How should she have behaved towards the man that would have persuaded him to leave the changing room quietly and not called the police? Just so that the rest of us know how to behave properly if, god forbid, we're ever in a similar situation and just want the man to get the hell out of our changing room?

FirmaTerra · 30/12/2025 10:46

Treaclewell · 29/12/2025 15:42

Usefully, Southwark has a number of other boroughs adjacent, who might have different policies, especially Bromley, which has gone Reform. Lambeth, Croydon, and Lewisham.
Soutwark women should withhold a proportion of their council tax as they are not receiving the service they are paying for.

Alas, anyone living in Southwark near to The Castle Centre (me) is too far from Lewisham and especially Croydon and Bromley and even much of Lambeth to be able to use council-run gyms there regularly.

I resent that, if we want a nearby gym with a lawful female only changing room policy, we have to go to private and therefore more-expensive-for-what-you-get gyms.

Cailin66 · 30/12/2025 10:46

MirandainSouthwark · 29/12/2025 09:34

Any of you who’d like to join us for a demonstration, please Google my name and email me. Thanks.

Miranda I’d like to thank you for being so brave. On behave of women like me who

would not use a changing room where men are allowed in
are fearful of being near men when in an undressed state
don’t want to be filmed naked or semi dressed
consider any man in such situations to be voyeurs at best or perverts, and potential predators at worst

I’m terrified on behalf of my daughters that rules allowing men in restrict their options to use guys or other public facilities. As teenagers I warned them never ever let themselves be filmed by their female friends in a state of undress because I told them I can’t protect them from even one photo. Now apparently it’s ok for a man to be filming in the ladies, it’s outrageous. And a predators heavenly charter. Especially for paedophiles.

Kimura · 30/12/2025 10:48

Cailin66 · 30/12/2025 10:17

No that’s not what the article says. It says the man called the police, and it says the police came and said there would be no action from them. Ergo the woman had done nothing wrong.

Also a woman has every right to object to a man being in the women’s changing room.

Show quote history

No that’s not what the article says. It says the man called the police,

I never suggested otherwise? The debate became heated and the police had to attend. That's literally what happened.

and it says the police came and said there would be no action from them. Ergo the woman had done nothing wrong.

I didn't claim that the woman had done anything 'wrong', or - as you seem to be insinuating - that there was any justification for calling the police. I simply stated that it happened. Why do you seem so intent on suggesting otherwise?

Also a woman has every right to object to a man being in the women’s changing room.

I agree, and have never suggested otherwise. Again, what's your point?

Kimura · 30/12/2025 10:52

SirChenjins · 30/12/2025 10:25

And despite all that, you still blamed the woman.

How should she have behaved towards the man that would have persuaded him to leave the changing room quietly and not called the police? Just so that the rest of us know how to behave properly if, god forbid, we're ever in a similar situation and just want the man to get the hell out of our changing room?

Show quote history

I have said - repeatedly - on this thread that I have no issue with how she behaved.

Helleofabore · 30/12/2025 10:56

A council who has a policy of banning a person because an incident became ‘heated’ and ‘the police attended’ is one that supports the continuation of abuse, whether by intention or not.

As we can see here, a man called the police on a false allegation and caused distress to someone who then raised their voice in distress. If the council then bans the victim, this then is an abusive act towards the person who has had the police called falsely on them.

The situation with this policy, if it is a policy to ban someone for a heated discussion and police attendance, is even more concerning than merely banning for misgendering and approaching a male person who is in the female communal changing room.

FirmaTerra · 30/12/2025 11:03

The debate became heated and the police had to attend. That's literally what happened.

No @Kimura that it is not literally what happened.

Where you’re going wrong is your use of “had”.

Once more for the cheap seats, as I and others including Miranda have made this point, the police did not have to attend.

They attended because the TiM called them. Because he lied or exaggerated about feeling threatened or because he thought Miranda was totally in the wrong to challenge him. The police disagreed that they “had” to have been called. They told Miranda, after speaking to the TiM first, that they shouldn’t have been called, that it wasn’t a matter for them. Presumably they also told the TiM and The Centre that. They spoke to Miranda for no more than a minute and didn’t tell her off at all.

We are all free to call the police whenever we want, especially using 101. Doesn’t mean that doing so and them turning up is never a waste of police time.

Can you admit now you’re wrong they “had” to turn up?

OldCrone · 30/12/2025 11:10

Kimura · 30/12/2025 10:52

I have said - repeatedly - on this thread that I have no issue with how she behaved.

Show quote history

This is what you wrote.

Kimura · 26/12/2025 09:02
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.

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.

Those posts are an interesting way of expressing your opinion that you have "no issue" with how she behaved.

If you have changed your mind and no longer believe she was in the wrong, having read more about what actually happened, the best way to do this would be to say so, rather than deny that you said those things in the first place. We all make mistakes, and there's no shame involved in admitting your mistakes.

Kimura · 30/12/2025 11:19

Helleofabore · 30/12/2025 10:56

A council who has a policy of banning a person because an incident became ‘heated’ and ‘the police attended’ is one that supports the continuation of abuse, whether by intention or not.

As we can see here, a man called the police on a false allegation and caused distress to someone who then raised their voice in distress. If the council then bans the victim, this then is an abusive act towards the person who has had the police called falsely on them.

The situation with this policy, if it is a policy to ban someone for a heated discussion and police attendance, is even more concerning than merely banning for misgendering and approaching a male person who is in the female communal changing room.

If you read the woman's posts on this thread, she say the council claims it banned her for a combination of things. The language she was using, the fact that incident went on for much longer than it needed to. Not just because because it got heated and the police were called.

Also, none of us have enough information to state unequivocally that the police were called on a 'false allegation'. If the trans person felt verbally or physically threatened at any point, they had every right to call the police. Now I highly doubt that this woman was about to start throwing punches, but that doesn't make it a false allegation.

It's absolutely possible that the call was made maliciously. Only one person knows for sure.

Kucinghitam · 30/12/2025 11:21

This thread has been so unexpectedly educational about The Right Side of History.

Helleofabore · 30/12/2025 11:30

Kimura · 30/12/2025 11:19

If you read the woman's posts on this thread, she say the council claims it banned her for a combination of things. The language she was using, the fact that incident went on for much longer than it needed to. Not just because because it got heated and the police were called.

Also, none of us have enough information to state unequivocally that the police were called on a 'false allegation'. If the trans person felt verbally or physically threatened at any point, they had every right to call the police. Now I highly doubt that this woman was about to start throwing punches, but that doesn't make it a false allegation.

It's absolutely possible that the call was made maliciously. Only one person knows for sure.

Show quote history

None of your post detracts from my point that the policy can be further the abuse of someone.

As you are being particularly pedantic here, maybe read my post again. I quite clearly used the situation as an illustration of such a policy.

The misgendering is also a concern because it is authoritarian in that it should not be considered a bannable offence to correctly sex someone, particularly when the sex of that person is the entire focus of the issue being discussed.

So I stand by my point that such a policy could be considered a continuation of abuse. By punishing a victim of abuse.

borntobequiet · 30/12/2025 11:32

Kucinghitam · 30/12/2025 11:21

This thread has been so unexpectedly educational about The Right Side of History.

And the deliberate misrepresentation of fact by carefully chosen language to present the woman’s behaviour as wrong.

Helleofabore · 30/12/2025 11:37

Helleofabore · 30/12/2025 11:30

None of your post detracts from my point that the policy can be further the abuse of someone.

As you are being particularly pedantic here, maybe read my post again. I quite clearly used the situation as an illustration of such a policy.

The misgendering is also a concern because it is authoritarian in that it should not be considered a bannable offence to correctly sex someone, particularly when the sex of that person is the entire focus of the issue being discussed.

So I stand by my point that such a policy could be considered a continuation of abuse. By punishing a victim of abuse.

Show quote history

I quite clearly used the situation as an illustration of such a policy.

Missed a bit:

I quite clearly used the situation as an illustration of the impacts of such a policy.

FirmaTerra · 30/12/2025 11:37

Kimura · 30/12/2025 11:19

If you read the woman's posts on this thread, she say the council claims it banned her for a combination of things. The language she was using, the fact that incident went on for much longer than it needed to. Not just because because it got heated and the police were called.

Also, none of us have enough information to state unequivocally that the police were called on a 'false allegation'. If the trans person felt verbally or physically threatened at any point, they had every right to call the police. Now I highly doubt that this woman was about to start throwing punches, but that doesn't make it a false allegation.

It's absolutely possible that the call was made maliciously. Only one person knows for sure.

Show quote history

@Kimura “the woman”

Miranda is on here, as you mentioned above.

Seems a bit pointed that you don’t then use her real name or her MN username.

Re your last paragraph: conversely, only one person felt the police “had” to be called. Yet you are being led by that.

The police get to decide on hearing both sides if they “had” to be called and they said they shouldn’t have been.

Helleofabore · 30/12/2025 11:39

“The police get to decide on hearing both sides if they “had” to be called and they said they shouldn’t have been.”

And if they said they shouldn’t have been, then that is a might strong indication that they believed it was a false allegation.

FirmaTerra · 30/12/2025 11:45

I do wonder @Kimura if it had been Miranda who had called the police, on the basis of feeling threatened that a man was in a women-only space, whether you’d still be saying the police “had” to be called…

Kucinghitam · 30/12/2025 11:46

Helleofabore · 30/12/2025 11:39

“The police get to decide on hearing both sides if they “had” to be called and they said they shouldn’t have been.”

And if they said they shouldn’t have been, then that is a might strong indication that they believed it was a false allegation.

When even the police haven't taken The Right Side of History, that is really saying something about the event in question. But, apparently, nobody can know for sure.

Kimura · 30/12/2025 12:04

FirmaTerra · 30/12/2025 11:03

The debate became heated and the police had to attend. That's literally what happened.

No @Kimura that it is not literally what happened.

Where you’re going wrong is your use of “had”.

Once more for the cheap seats, as I and others including Miranda have made this point, the police did not have to attend.

They attended because the TiM called them. Because he lied or exaggerated about feeling threatened or because he thought Miranda was totally in the wrong to challenge him. The police disagreed that they “had” to have been called. They told Miranda, after speaking to the TiM first, that they shouldn’t have been called, that it wasn’t a matter for them. Presumably they also told the TiM and The Centre that. They spoke to Miranda for no more than a minute and didn’t tell her off at all.

We are all free to call the police whenever we want, especially using 101. Doesn’t mean that doing so and them turning up is never a waste of police time.

Can you admit now you’re wrong they “had” to turn up?

The police 'had' to attend because someone reported that they were being threatened. Of course they 'had' to turn up. What else could they have done, ignored it just in case the caller was lying or exaggerating?

Why are you suggesting that because I said the police had to attend that means a crime has been committed?

You don't get to decide if someone is lying or exaggerating about feeling threatened. If Miranda had called the police because she felt threatened, I guarantee you'd have no issue with me saying "Things got heated and the police had to attend". Or would you suggest that she was lying or exaggerating if the police didn't take further action?

Things got heated which resulted in the police attending - Is that better for you?

Kimura · 30/12/2025 12:09

FirmaTerra · 30/12/2025 11:45

I do wonder @Kimura if it had been Miranda who had called the police, on the basis of feeling threatened that a man was in a women-only space, whether you’d still be saying the police “had” to be called…

Yes, obviously, if Miranda called the police and reported being threatened, I would say the police had to attend. Why wouldn't I?

Kimura · 30/12/2025 12:25

FirmaTerra · 30/12/2025 11:37

@Kimura “the woman”

Miranda is on here, as you mentioned above.

Seems a bit pointed that you don’t then use her real name or her MN username.

Re your last paragraph: conversely, only one person felt the police “had” to be called. Yet you are being led by that.

The police get to decide on hearing both sides if they “had” to be called and they said they shouldn’t have been.

Show quote history

The police get to decide on hearing both sides if they “had” to be called and they said they shouldn’t have been.

Surely you can work out that this was in reference to policing a disagreement over a trans person being in a female space?

You're not seriously suggesting that the police said that someone who felt threatened shouldn't have called them?

JellySaurus · 30/12/2025 13:04

Things got heated after the man had called the police.

I suspect that the man identified as frightened, just like he identified as a woman.

Rather like Kimura appears to identify as supporting women’s human rights.

Kimura · 30/12/2025 13:17

OldCrone · 30/12/2025 11:10

This is what you wrote.

Kimura · 26/12/2025 09:02
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.

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.

Those posts are an interesting way of expressing your opinion that you have "no issue" with how she behaved.

If you have changed your mind and no longer believe she was in the wrong, having read more about what actually happened, the best way to do this would be to say so, rather than deny that you said those things in the first place. We all make mistakes, and there's no shame involved in admitting your mistakes.

Show quote history

I have no issue with her behavior. I never claimed she was in the wrong. That doesn't change the fact that her behavior is what got her banned from the leisure center, not her views on the issue. I said exactly that in my original post and I'm saying it again now...how has my mind changed?

The problem with this topic on MN is that because I dared to say something which wasn't simply nodding along in absolute agreement, a bunch of you assumed I was on the 'wrong' side of the issue and started treating me as such.

I think this incident is serious enough as it is without having to misrepresent the facts of what happened. But for pointing that out I've been accused of saying and thinking all sorts 🤷🏻‍♂️

MirandainSouthwark · 30/12/2025 13:49

Kucinghitam · 30/12/2025 09:43

@MirandainSouthwark I'm too far away to attend, but all power to you!

Beforehand, be sure to take instruction from The Righteous on the correct manner to conduct yourself during any mild registration of your disagreement with The Right Side of History. Perhaps keeping your gaze demurely downcast, speaking in a gentle murmur using only the mildest tones and words from the lexicon of permissible non-heated language, hands held open and low, and with a careful balance of detached calm (to display your credibility as a cogitative being who has considered the issue logically) combined with sufficient indications of delicate dismay (to convey your emotional authenticity which will nevertheless be dismissed because you're not of the caste whose emotions are deemed important).

Also, remember that if there is a small number of protesters, this undeniably demonstrates that nobody objects and society supports female humans being compelled to remove their clothing in the presence of male humans, whilst if there's a large number of protesters, this undeniably demonstrates an organised mass bullying fake news campaign and society supports female humans being compelled to remove their clothing in the presence of male humans. The actual definition of small or large numbers is entirely down to The Righteous on a completely fluid basis.

If at any point the police are called, this self-evidently demonstrates that you have failed to adhere to the correct manner of conduct, confirms your condemnation to The Wrong Side of History and furthermore society supports female humans being compelled to remove their clothing in the presence of male humans.

😂😂😂😂BRILLIANT!!! Are you on X? I'd love to follow you!! In fact, I'd buy a ticket to your West End comedy show!! :-)
😍😍😎😍

MirandainSouthwark · 30/12/2025 13:53

Kimura · 30/12/2025 12:25

The police get to decide on hearing both sides if they “had” to be called and they said they shouldn’t have been.

Surely you can work out that this was in reference to policing a disagreement over a trans person being in a female space?

You're not seriously suggesting that the police said that someone who felt threatened shouldn't have called them?

Show quote history

The police were with me around 35 seconds. They didn't even want 'my side of the story'. They said "This was a waste of our time." I said "I didn't call you, sorry, he did." They said "Just stay away from each other in future, as you will never agree on this issue." They didn't offer any info on the gym's policy, whether it was legal, or their perspective on my actions at all.
Which leads me to believe they didn't think I had done anything wrong.

Original poster

lcakethereforeIam · 30/12/2025 13:54

@Kimura do you think the Council was reasonable in banning Miranda from the centres?

OP posts: