Looking for a gym with female-only changing rooms by sex: a journey

[2021x]

I am trying to find a gym in my city (not UK) that excludes males from the female showering and changing rooms.

I was in my gym and there was a man in the changing room- no attempt to be female other than a sports-bra- and since then I was just stressed everytime I went.

I have emailed a gym who say they are trans-inclusive on a case by case basis and said I should use the accessiblity changing room if I am uncomfortable.

I have also put up a post on Reddit in the local page - that got auto-moderated, and then the same post on the national page that is going through normal moderation.

My post says this

I am looking for XXXX gyms that have female‑only changing and shower areas that are restricted by sex, not self‑identified gender.

I’m comfortable sharing these spaces with other females, but I’m not comfortable changing or showering in areas where males may be present.

If you know of any gyms in XXXX please sent me a direct message.

Wish me luck.

The GRA is effectively superfluous right now. No amendments needed.I don't think anyone could have predicted the previous two years. Who knows how things will go in the future? We'll see.

The GRA is exactly as it was when it was laid. It always had exceptions.

You say the law has changed and that would require either new legislation or an amendment to existing legislation. You claim the law has changed so I'm asking which piece of legislation you think has changed.

Ladies, just a suggestion, it might be a good idea to stop entertaining this poster and feeding his deflections. Notice the exact pattern every time he is backed into a corner by hard facts: he makes a grand, sweeping statement, but the second someone asks him for a direct, verifiable receipt—like asking him exactly which piece of legislation was amended—he completely chokes, refuses to answer, and hides behind vague phrases like 'who knows what the future holds.'

Nothing has changed. He cannot name a single amendment because every major legal milestone of the last two years has actively dismantled his position—from the Supreme Court's FWS ruling anchoring 'sex' to material biology, to Faye’s monumental workplace safeguarding victory against NHS England today.

He has completely run out of scientific, legal, and structural ammunition, which is why he has been reduced to typing out empty, defensive bluffing. Let's stop giving him the attention he's looking for. His arguments have been completely dismantled; he has failed to provide a single receipt. Let him talk to a silent room.

If @onepostwonder really believes that he is a woman it wouldn't occur to him to post on these threads.

Even 5 years ago, extreme transgender rights activists pointed out that pretty much the only thing the GRA was there for was for same sex marriage.

Maybe you misunderstood the GRA. On this board we have always noted the exceptions that were allowed. We even pointed it out on this board to barristers who have told us we were wrong and then lost their cases.

So, the question has been asked, what law has changed? Perhaps you have been mistaken that something has changed.

New interpretations of law create new law.

The LAW has not changed.

No legislation has been passed.

The law was misrepresented by Stonewall and other activists.

The 2010 Equality Act had now been explained in simple terms to prevent further misrepresentation.

It says the same thing in the statute as it said in 2010.

THE LAW HAS NOT CHANGED. SEX ALWAYS MEANT BIOLOGICAL SEX IN THE EQUALITY ACT.

No. It doesn’t.

Again, you may need to broaden you information sources

Gawd.

It's not changed at all.

Stop pretending that FWS was a law change, it isn't.

Please list one court case before the SC Judgement that interpreted the law differently? because if that court case was ignored by the Supreme Court as setting a legal precedence, then there is an issue.

If no case preceded the SC judgement then your ‘interpretations’ have been wrong interpretations. Stonewall has been now targeted by judges remarks for giving incorrect advice in more than one case now. I would suggest again, that your broaden your advice sources because you sound like you are getting misinformed.

No they don't. Stonewall and many others lied about the law, relying on fear, uncertainty, and doubt plus a big fat dose of branding dissenters "bigots" to get away with the lies. They hid the lie in plain sight, using terms like "going beyond the law" when recommending policies to organisations. This phrase "going beyond the law" was a confession that they knew they were misrepresenting the law couched in #bekind rhetoric.

Three very brave women in Scotland screwed their courage to the sticking place and took the Scottish Govt to court. The Supreme Court considered the legal arguments and declared the truth of the law. The law has not changed. The lies have been exposed.

"Another important constraint on judicial law-making is the declaratory theory of the common law, namely that a judicial decision, even when it is in reality innovative, is stating what the law has always been. Fairy tales rule. The judgment therefore has retrospective effect and has great potential to disrupt a settled understanding of the law on which people have relied in transacting business. The principle of legal certainty and the legitimate expectations of people militate against judges taking what Professor Burrows has described as “giant and sudden leaps forward” and confine them to “the incremental interpretation of principle, applied to new ideas and conditions”.67 But even then, the courts are still struggling with the consequences of the judicial recognition in the 1990s of a claim in unjust enrichment arising out of a mistake of law, where the “mistake” is created retrospectively by an innovative judicial decision."

https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/speech_191028_a541d2331c.pdf

Transgender reddit seems to be pinning its hopes on Strasbourg🙄

I saw that one of the TRAs was suggesting that losing all these cases is their strategy because that provides the proof that the legal system is mistreating trans people once they take their case to Strasbourg. I can't remember if it was Watson or Hayden that said it.

Christ. I mean what they could do is stop being sexist and fight for extra trans spaces. But no. Has to be women's spaces. Bunch of toddlers.

What, exactly, was "innovative" about FWS? The SC examined Parliament's law, the Equality Act, carefully and concluded that there was only one way to interpret it that didn't cause "legislative incoherence". This isn't a Roe vs Wade type case where there's ambiguity in how something is worded that allows for more than one interpretation. The EA can only make sense if sex means biological sex.

Great plan, well-executed. Damn their fiendish strategy 😁

FWS reversed the conventional understanding and legal guidance around the administration where protected characteristics listed the EA and GRA intersect.

The "conventional understanding" being those lies that Stonewall et al told.

FWS declared the truth of the law. Now no one can pretend that the emperor is anything but bollock naked.

As the SC said, any other interpretation would be legally incoherent.

You aren't refuting what I said.

New interpretations of law create new law.

Again I ask. Which part of the Equality Act was amended.

No they didn't. No one 'understood' it to be anything other than what it was.

Hence Stonewall saying they were 'getting ahead of the law'.

They knew what the law was, they just didn't like it.

Too bad.

The SC Judgement was NOT a new interpretation of the Law it stated what the Law was, is and always has been.

Stonewall and others with NO legal insight, training or qualifications lied about what the law was, is and always has been and fools chose to believe them.

Yes. But in toddler magical thinking land, laws transactivists don't like are bad and transphobic and are there to be ignored.

Plus they've never been told no until; recently. 😂