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/

I had no issue with it 😅

I've no idea why it was deleted. I don't think I said anything more unacceptable than a lot of other posts on this thread.

I called a man a man (so have lots of other posters). I also made a comment about the genderist movement in general. Maybe that was it.

Well the reaction was clear at the Hampstead ponds.

And I've always said that the reaction would have been different in the Peggie case if she'd been the doctor and Upton the nurse, too.

I'm not understanding how Southwark Council can do this to Miranda when the law is 100 percent on her side.

@MirandainSouthwark it might be worth creating a new thread about this, so more people are likely to see it? Unfortunately I am too far away to join you, but I’ll be there in spirit! Good luck

I'll give it a go.

I've reported the thread and asked MN to add brief protest details to the title. Fingers crossed I haven't banjanxed the whole thread.

But I did get to use 'banjanxed'...twice! So there's that.

I've been thinking ever since Man Friday that this is the only way to put this on the public agenda. Every time a man invades a room for women, the next week a crowd of women shows up an invades the room for men. Every time, again and again. Show the inequality up for what it is, a consquence of a patriarchal system.
People were against women having the right to vote, or black people sitting at the front of the bus. Until women and black people protested/did just that.

This is about citizens rights, as well -- maybe its easier to see in countries where this has already been made law, and women have to agree with men in female prisons, because it is law that a man who says he is a woman is a woman. (When was the first female prison opened to protect women? 1826? We're returning back to the times before that date.)

Oh wow, fantastic! Will be cheering you on from abroad!

Unfortunately I suspect action like that would simply be put down again to the women’s ‘behaviour’.

The twatty handmaiden who condoned this shit needs banning!

Thanks so much @lcakethereforeIam ! Hopefully Southwark gym's vile behaviour will be banjanxed soon enough!

I can’t see how he would have felt threatened by me, as I say, I approached calmly (on the outside!) and with “kind” language.
I felt he filmed me with the idea of sharing a “old, b@tchy Karen” type video. Just my impression, of course.
That was my first thought afterwards, that he would be sharing the video. But then I thought, he’d have to cut the first bit where I’m backing up and he says he’s scared cause I raised a fist and basically the whole section within the female changing room.

He didn't feel threatened - he knew perfectly well that he held all the power, with a lifetime of male privilege behind him. He knew the lines to trot out though - the TRAs have rehearsed them over and over again, and are word perfect now. Fortunately for women, the tide of public opinion is turning - it's just taking some organisations longer to catch up.

I agree he probably filmed with a view to shenanigans. These types and their advocates have gone after women's jobs, families, mental health and physical safety.

I meant to put 'felt threatened' in quotes in one of my above posts.

I wasn't there so this is of course supposition, but while I strongly doubt he actually felt under physical threat which is what he said, I do believe he may well have felt under threat in a 'the jig is up' way. His days in the ladies were under threat, his identity 'as a woman' was essentially under threat.

Filming is frequently used by many people as a way of trying to shame the 'accuser' into shutting up and going away.

You are being very kind to him here (in the genuine, generous sense of kind, not the prescriptive, ideological sense of ‘Kind’). The challenge is part of the pleasure for a boundary-breaker.

Yes, men in women’s spaces where they know they shouldn’t be is completely the challenge and the pleasure.

I came off X a couple of years ago. I remember endless posts by creepy smirking men filming themselves in women’s toilets. They were even more delighted if they managed to catch unsuspecting women in their pictures/videos. Filming themselves looking into the toilet mirror always seemed a popular choice.

I’ve long thought certain posters on here get their rocks off by inserting themselves into women’s conversations. They’re always the one to start the ‘genital inspection’ rubbish. I strongly suspect they love to hear women’s accounts of male violence.

Dangerous, malfunctioning little men who can’t believe their luck. Luck in that their fetish & misogyny is part of an ideology that meant our current PM, and most of his cabinet, suddenly didn’t know what a woman was anymore. That lead to police cars being painted with rainbows. A men’s rights movement badly disguised with a dodgy wig & lipstick.

It will never fail to disappoint and anger me just how this sick ideology has exposed so many people’s lack of moral courage & critical thinking. The minute people went along with the pro noun nonsense, started using transwomen & transmen, cervix havers etc, the rot set in. It should always have been men in women’s toilets, men in women’s sporting events, men in women’s rape crisis centres.

As MN has always said, ‘No’ really is a complete sentence.

It is your fault for being deliberately being obtuse. You know full well what you’re at including your scrupulously avoiding using the male pronoun instead using “they” consistently.

It was totally out of order, for a male to be in a women's changing room in the first place, but to then film inside that changing room, should in my humble opinion, see him charged, because voyeurism is a criminal offence under the 2003 sexual offences act. As for your earlier comment about businesses forming new rules, the Supreme Court ruling is law from the moment it was passed, so a biological male had no right to be in a women's changing room in the first place. Miranda did absolutely nothing wrong.

Just a small point, the Supreme Court is not when it was the law, the court ruling is that it was the law from the Act of Law. In other words all places or businesses with contrary policies were operating illegally. Both prior to the Supreme Court ruling and right now if they haven’t fixed their policies.

Three “she’s” for Miranda, Zero “he’s” for the man, One “the person” for the man….

‘You can just scroll on’

Yes, we could choose to, but unfortunately given the deliberate insertion of men into women only spaces scrolling on isn’t an option.

Lots of people never post on MN, some have only a limited knowledge of a subject. Deliberately obtuse (the correct word, as used by a pp) posts such as we’ve seen here need to be addressed.

It’s such a cliche. A man or a handmaiden plops onto these threads, pretends not to understand what all the silly women are making a fuss about. Then 10, 9, 8 …… it’s onto genitals and tales of male violence.

The posts are boring & predictable as hell, but always useful to shine a light on this men’s rights movement.

‘oh, NeverOneBiscuit, I don’t know what you’re referring to? I was merely …’ Yeah, yeah, save it for the judge as the saying goes.

She, herself, her for Miranda. “People” for the man.

So what? This is actually a fight for the civil rights of women, to be treated the same as men. Civil rights were never just handed out, but they were always taken away with the stroke of a pen.
And truly, I am old enough to not care if they don't like my behaviour. 🙃