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/

No, she was banned because the council, who have a policy of allowing men to trample over the rights of women, have decided it's easier to take that action against one woman than it is to face the wrath of the TRAs and do the right and lawful thing.

And when there are people like you who'd rather shrug and claim that 'oh well, there must be Reasons and Things for her to be banned', rather than standing up and speaking out for the rights of women and girls, even after the woman has explained what actually happened, this will only continue.

@Kimura

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?

You're being disingenuous. You were using 'the police had to attend' to strongly imply the matter had to essentially be resolved and the argument broken up by the police. Hence you incorrectly saying the matter "ended" with the police being called.

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

I wasn't suggesting that, you've misunderstood.

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?

There's an irony in you starting this paragraph by saying I don't get to decide if someone is lying or exaggerating but then stating you "guarantee" I'd have no issue with something. You don't know me. If Miranda had called the police and the police reacted in the same way as they did, and all the other facts were the same, I would still have had an issue with you saying the police had to attend and that is how it ended because it would have been factually incorrect.

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

That is better thanks, although still doesn't make it clear that it was the TiM getting heated that resulted in him calling the police. If he'd told the police Miranda had threatened him, and they believed that, they'd have asked her about it. She's said here that they didn't.

I have no issue with her behavior. I never claimed she was in the wrong.

Good to know that you weren't claiming she was in the wrong when you said this:
It wasn't up to her to police the situation in person and drag people into a heated argument in public.

So according to you it wasn't up to her to do this, but you don't think it was wrong for her to do this.

Glad we've cleared that up.

It's good that your posts are so clear that nobody could possibly misunderstand them.

Now to address your 2nd post quoting me in a row:

It wasn't obvious to me, that's why I asked. HTH.

I don't think she should have been put in the position she was put in in the first place. That's their fault, certainly. (Although - and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong on this - I believe a lot of business are still waiting for proper legal/govt guidance on single sex spaces before updating their own policies?). As a result of their policies, she felt compelled to act, and now she's suffering the consequences - which doesn't feel morally fair.

If we put the subject matter behind the confrontation to one side, I can't think of many businesses that would tolerate similar scenes without taking action.

If we assume that the council's position is that her language was inappropriate, that she was unwilling to let the issue drop, that she should have brought her concerns to members of staff/management instead of confronting another customer herself, and that given Miranda's beliefs on this issue, it's highly likely there could be a repeat incident, I don't think it's unreasonable of them to issue a ban.

I don't think it's fair, but I understand why they did it.

And to address your third post quoting me in a row:

You're being a bit rude now tbh. But to answer:

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

You can't separate the two parts, the threat and the policing the disagreement. See below.

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

I am indeed suggesting that's what they were implying. On the basis that they clearly didn't take the feeling threatened seriously otherwise why didn't they ask Miranda about it AFTER having spoken to the TiM? If the TiM, on speaking to the police in person, told them they'd felt threatened by Miranda, then by the police not asking Miranda about it and saying they shouldn't have been called they were either:

(a) making a judgment call that Miranda hadn't actually posed a threat at all; OR

(b) not doing their job properly by not questioning Miranda about it.

So according to you it wasn't up to her to do this, but you don't think it was wrong for her to do this.

I don't have a problem with someone punching an abusive drunk in the pub. But it's not up to them to deal with, it's up to the bouncer.

It's really not that complicated. Just because you or I think something is morally permissable doesn't mean everyone else sees it that way.

The OP didn't punch anyone - she wasn't violent in any way, shape or form.

Would you have a problem with the bouncer banning a woman who refused to accept a man in the female toilets?

It's terrifying that this continues to happen. Well done to the woman who stood up for all of us when she challenged the bloke in her changing room.

Perhaps the police looked at the 6 foot tall bloke alongside the 5 foot 5 inch lady in her sixties & decided that his claim to be feeling threatened & unsafe was a complete load of hogwash?

'Preciate your answer.

So what you meant to say was: "I'd have done the same as her, but she shouldn't have had to do it, because the staff should have done their job."

Next time, why not just say what you mean instead of writing cryptic posts which appear to say the opposite of what you actually mean, and we won't have to spend hours discussing your posts.

You can't separate the two parts, the threat and the policing the disagreement.

Of course you can. The police responded to a report of someone being threatened.

I am indeed suggesting that's what they were implying. On the basis that they clearly didn't take the feeling threatened seriously

Right, so they responded to a report of someone being threatened. When they arrived and spoke to everyone they ascertained that it wasn't really a case of someone making criminal threats, it was an argument about single sex spaces that had got out of hand, and it was highly unlikely that anyone was in any real danger, or being threatened with real danger.

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

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?

making a judgment call that Miranda hadn't actually posed a threat

They made that call once they'd attended and got all the facts. They're not suggesting that someone who felt threatened at the time shouldn't have called them, or that it was a malicious call.

Hard agree. I've worked in a number of public sector organisations that provide services to the general public, and the threshold to ban a service user is usually set exponentially higher than this ridiculous situation.

If an organisation wants the opportunity to resolve problems without members of the public getting involved in policing its policies, then the answer is to have very clearly expressed lawful policies, and to have staff present and actively supporting the lawful policies.

I did say exactly what I meant. It's not my fault that you can't tell the difference between a fact and my opinion.

Nobody is making you spend hours discussing my posts, you can just scroll on 🤷🏻‍♂️

I've not shrugged at anything. I just don't need to pretend this is something it's not in order to care about it.

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?

@Kimura I don't know what was said to the man in the female changing room. I do know what was said by them to Miranda (according to her anyway, which I deem reliable) as she told me on the day and her story hasn't changed in the months since.

Moving on, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the Council also banned the TiM for a year, to try and 'be fair' and 'both sides' this. I hope they banned him permanently for filming in the women's changing room, even if, to stick strictly to the facts, he did so to purely film Miranda because he felt threatened and wanted a record. His intentions don't seem in any way to have been to film women in a state of undress, and the woman who came out in a towel apparently wasn't in view of the phone lens.

But he absolutely should have known that there was a risk he'd catch someone on film in a state of undress. It was feasible that a half-naked child could have accidentally wandered into view. The TiM could have dealt with the 'threat' in a way that didn't involve filming, since there were others around in the changing room.

Shame on him for totally prioritising himself and not respecting in any way the privacy of women and girls.

Your virtual shrug could not have been any clearer. A man was in the female changing area and he shouldn't have been - that is literally all you need to care about.

Moving on, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the Council also banned the TiM for a year, to try and 'be fair' and 'both sides' this.

I assume they used some choice language back to Miranda? I suppose they could get them for that but I doubt they'd be able to justify a full year for that alone.

I hope they banned him permanently for filming in the women's changing room, even if, to stick strictly to the facts, he did so to purely film Miranda because he felt threatened and wanted a record.

I get the instinct to record if you're feeling threatened - both in terms of having evidence of what happened and because people are less likely to do bad things on camera, but as you say, it was a very poor choice given the location.

Count me in, so sick of this utter cowardice on the part of weak and captured organisations.

Men, in female only spaces. Passing, not passing, ‘scared’ (my arse) just awaiting the ECHR guidance, ‘well I’ve been using the ladies for years’ and ‘I’m never challenged’

No. Just no. If you’re a man in a female only space you’re knowingly transgressing women’s privacy, dignity & in some cases safety. In my view all men in women’s spaces are perverts. Even the just for validation ones. No, f**k off and get your creepy mates to validate you at home/in a club/in the shed - wherever you meet.

I’ve questioned mixed changing rooms in a shop (men’s closed, all into the women’s - of course) crossed out gender & replaced it with sex on a sign about men potentially cleaning a public toilet. I would challenge a man in my female space & am so proud & impressed that you did.

As Posie Parker shouted at the cheating male swimmer William (Lia) Thomas - ‘HE’S A MAN.’

💪💪💪💪💪

It is endlessly ridiculous, isn’t it?

Think about the type of blokes involved. You have the brass neck & confidence to enter a female single sex space, further emboldened by your attempt (never successful) to look like your idea of a woman.

You know that most of the women will be embarrassed, feel awkward, compromised & often afraid.when they see a man in their changing room.

However, you can rely on norms of socialisation, fear & the supercharged atmosphere created by the TRAs that you are unlikely to be rightfully challenged.

If a woman does challenge you, as opposed to being challenged by a man, she does not have the backstop leverage of physical power over you. Your mere presence is a FU to all the women there.

Yet here we are, all these scared vulnerable little men apparently cowering in fear because of uppity women, breaking their magic spell by saying you’re a man in a woman’s space.

Alert: protest details
Saturday 10 January
1PM
SE1 6FG
TUBE: Elephant & Castle or Kennington
Speakers include Tracy Edwards ⭐️
Details: x.com/mirandanewsom/status/2006074590838116856?s=46

@OldCrone I saw your last message earier and was going to come back when I had more time to respond, as you quoted me. But it's been deleted for some reason

@lcakethereforeIam would it be possible to change the title to include the protest details please?

I can't be there but am so glad it is taking place and hope we can draw lots of attention to it.