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/

Them them,for the man, she her she she her for Miranda. ….

Nodding along or other side. Mmm.

Cailin, you might have put your finger onto why so many posters have made the assumptions they have.

The messaging isn’t even that subtle once you point it out.

I always notice it. Because it’s so difficult and contrived to do it. Back in my naive “be kind” past I’d thought it ok to use the pronouns of choice, as I educated myself and realised it was about control of me/women/society I’ve come to a complete No. When it walks and quacks like a handmaiden it’s a duck…

I love mumsnet for the No is a complete sentence and came on here when I got gaslighted and wondered what was wrong with me as I saw the light. Which as the feminists on here say, once you see it you cannot ever go back.

A very clever duck I think not, but give them enough rope… We must not be fooled and must be always vigilant.

Yup, @Cailin66, hence this post.

I think @Kimura actually means plural persons by ‘people’ there and isn’t referring to the TIM. That (in Kimira’s mind) Miranda ‘dragged’ other people beside the TiM into it.

My mother would always say, “No is such a pretty little word.”

Nope, because Kimura was responding to this which is about a man singular, not people:

plantcomplex · 26/12/2025 15:35
I am curious as to why you are so intent on defending an abusive man that you would twist the facts to blame his victim?

She her her
She she
Her
she she - all in response to questions about Miranda, but then it was 'this person' for the man (in response to the quote about It's not wrong to ask him to leave.)
then her, she her

I am not disagreeing with your general point at all, but the example you gave of Kimura using the word "people" that I quoted and said wasn't about the TIM was not in response to plantcomplex.

As you'll see in the screenshot, it was in response to a post by Old Crone

I completely agree @Helleofabore but I not sure what a better process would look like? In this instance it would be particularly difficult to challenge the individual involved as it sounds like their sex has been changed on their official ID docs.

The Supreme Court made it clear that holding a GRC made no difference for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, all that matters is whether somebody is biologically male or female.

So if a man trying to pass as a woman is showing documents -which are legal fictions - he’s simply trying to use ‘evidence’ to break the law, & hoping the organisation offering the single (opposite) sex service will help him break it.

The onus is on the man not to break the law. As has been repeated ad infinitum we all know who are men & who are women, a pink track suit isn’t going to mystify the gym receptionists (apart from those too cowardly or virtue signalling to be ‘confused’).

Clear signage on spaces, clarity in organisations terms & conditions, trained staff who understand & will comply with the law. All these are required to keep women’s spaces free of men. Of course the other crucial plank is men themselves, having to accept the word No, they can’t come in.

Thanks for your very clear response @NeverOneBiscuit. Yes it is helpful that the Supreme Court clarified helpfully clarified that. I suppose my point is that I still think it’s challenging to put staff in a position of having to say ‘I just know you’re a man’ even if their judgement is self evidently sound. Of course all of the ‘signifiers’ referred to in the examples above are nonsense.

So, I think the points you make in the final paragraph are the key ones- it’s about confident and consistent policy, messaging, training - and leadership. Given what we’ve seen about how powerfully public institutions have been captured I’m not confident we’re close to seeing that anywhere. (As as aside, as a public servant, every time I see a story like this, I have to add to my list of organisations I’d prefer not to work in).

On a separate note, in addition to the protest, I wonder if GC Southwark Labour members will be making their voice heard through subscriptions and in the May elections?

@SarkyMummy I agree that it’s challenging for individual staff to have to tell a man that, as a man, he can’t use the women’s facilities. Just typing that demonstrates how ridiculous the situation has become.

Nobody would hesitate to tell a 25 year old man dressed as a school boy that he couldn’t enter a school as a pupil. You can no more change your age than you can your sex, but here we are.

I share your lack of confidence that individuals in organisations will feel able to openly uphold the law. It’s such an insidious ideology. & the thought stopping cliches of ‘transwomen are women’ Trans rights are human rights’ have wiggled into the brains of even the most disinterested. Plus of course the mangling of language that describes women.

It’s going to be like pushing a rock uphill. In many schools now ‘being trans/NB’ is fast becoming passé. The law suits are here & coming down the track, men in women’s spaces & detransitioners. There’s more pushback in the media & in my own experience on an individual level.

It’s not going to go away. There’s too much money at stake, reputations to maintain, and social media will fuel the fire. Plus the parents who’ve harmed their children, they’re all in.

My hope is that it will become seen as a cult, as people quietly delete their pronouns from their emails.

I agree that it is going to be difficult. And that IDs have been changed.

There was a suggestion in the guidance that if there was any doubt that a person could be taken to an office and a private discussion can be had to ascertain the fact. This can also be after a complaint has been lodged. However, the onus should not have to be on staff to do this.

The ultimate onus is and always was on male people to respect female people’s needs and to self monitor their behaviour to fit the rules and the law. With the next layer of responsibility being on the organisation to have very clear polices. Sadly, it will be the staff that will bear the brunt of having to uphold those policies.

For instance, if a male person who was initially accepted as being female is very clearly male, such as in this instance, the policy should be clear. That that male has broken the law and will be banned at the very least.

I would suggest that this current ability to change sex on ID is going to be a nightmare until this ability is retracted. Because it is a privilege to do that. And if that privilege is constantly abused and male people defy the law, how can that privilege remain available.

It will feel like very slow progress, however I cannot see how any government can continue long term to allow such gaping loopholes that allow laws to be broken by deception in this way.

Totally agree @Helleofabore

I’ve always thought that being able to change your birth certificate - a historical document - was insane. It’s exactly because of these nonsensical fictions that the trans lobby can strut around crying that it’s all so complicated.

Of course it’s not complicated at all - men are men. But the minute you start giving them false documents they can wave them around as ‘proof’ (although a GRC as we know only considers a man a woman in law for a few very specific purposes).

Jonathan (India) Willoughby waving his passport around on tv with the F on the details page. There’s so much unwinding to do. Physically men have to be pushed & kept out of all female single sex spaces. We have to reclaim our language. The GRA needs to be repealed.

Thank you. The policy is, as you say, inconsistent. Outfits seem a main priority, along with hair length.
Also, the manager said 'If someone comes to us and wants to use the opposite sex changing rooms, then we would do a case-by-case assessment" then later, admitted this particular individual hadn't come to management to 'ask permission' and get assessed, but had taken it upon himself to go in. (There isn't a clear sign saying males who want to go in must submit to an visual assessment – or any indication to women and girls that some men WILL be allowed in!).
So, basically, the management is allowing any old man to go in and take his chances that the women will keep schtum and put up with it, out of fear, embarrassment or anxiety.
This is not legal or 'welcoming' policy (for women and girls!).

Yes, and agree with your previous post.
The policy is not robust, AND lower-level staff had no idea what the policy was. No clarity for staff and certainly no transparency for women and girls.
Such careless 'safeguarding' in council-run leisure centres is actually shocking.

The case by case assessment is actually hilarious, although in this context none of this is funny.

Imagine Brian going to the gym, in his new Sweaty Betty outfit, just had his nails done & highlights. Unfortunately his 6ft 2 frame, enormous brow, shovel hands & broad shoulders make the receptionists sweat.

They’ve just let ‘Lindy’ in because he’s a slim, 5ft 7 man who disguises his Adam’s apple with a jaunty scarf, has long brown hair & does his make up well.

Are they going to tell Brian to go home & try harder, as if he can fool them then they’ll let him into the womens, as presumably he’ll also be able to fool the women undressing in there?

It really demonstrates how this nonsense has ingrained itself everywhere. Sod safeguarding women, no, let’s centre the men who want us to go along with their delusion. For women it’s safety, dignity & privacy, for men it’s costume, validation & power.

The guideline isn't how you present. It is what sex you obviously are.

@FirmaTerra is right - that particular 'people' was in reference to everyone who became involved in the disagreement. But I do find myself using neutral terms like 'person' when referring to a trans person, yes.

I'm not telling anybody anything they don't already know by referring to a trans woman as a man in general conversation, and I'm not going to do it just to make a point.

I'm happy to hold and express my view on trans people (or anyone else for that matter) without feeling the need to be deliberately disrespectful or antagonistic.

But I do find myself using neutral terms like 'person' when referring to a trans person, yes.

I'm not telling anybody anything they don't already know by referring to a trans woman as a man in general conversation, and I'm not going to do it just to make a point.

In this case, as in many others, the crux of the matter is that the "trans person" is a man. Not a neutral "person", but male, a man.

I’m not suggesting for a minute that I ageee with men in women’s changing rooms. But as you raised it and the boot being on the other foot. This happens at almost every event where there are crowds and alcohol. So concerts, theatres, sports events. I’ll be at the urinal and there will be women using the cubicles in the gents. I would never complain because it isn’t ever threatening for a guy for a woman to be in the toilets with you and this is completely normal in France. Although I must admit at BST Hyde park a women did stand right next to me and look down and said “it’s always fascinated me to see men doing this” which was a bit weird. In hindsight I should have just turned and peed on her leg.

I don't know how anyone thought that leaving it up to (clearly untrained, unprepared and perhaps unwilling) staff to perform 'assessments' would be a good idea.

I expect that ultimately single sex spaces in gyms, leisure centers etc will require a QR/fob to access, and that these will be issued based on biological sex, which will have to be disclosed as a condition of entry/membership.

Not to open another can of worms, but having this information on a government issued digital ID would make it fairly cut and dry.

Not to open another can of worms, but having this information on a government issued digital ID would make it fairly cut and dry.

Given that government issued ID, i.e. passports and driving licences, can be falsified to show the wrong sex on request, without even obtaining a GRC, having accurate information about sex on digital ID would require a total change in policy.

In this case, as in many others, the crux of the matter is that the "trans person" is a man. Not a neutral "person", but male, a man.

Right, and we're all very aware of that and nobody is implying otherwise. I don't believe a trans woman should be in a female changing room, and I'm not referring to them as such for any other reason than politeness.

I also believe that the reason they're there in the first place is almost certainly because they're a trans person, not because they're a man. I'm not aware of any instances of men who aren't trans claiming a right to use women's facilities in this way. This is a trans-specific issue, so using the term men (outside of references to biology) feels a bit out of place to me.

I've often seen the claim on MN that men only transition out of misogyny; I expect many of those who feel the need to use the word 'men' so incessantly in these discussions subscribe to that school of thought? Genuine question.