FFS. This is outrageous.
Obviously we will have to see what the consultation comes up with, but I wondered that rather than framing the argument as single sex exemptions need to be justified, can we argue that changes to policies that end single sex provision is discrimination against women and women in certain religious groups and that a fully trans inclusive policy in the womens pond is not a proportionate means of achieving their legit aim (trans inclusion).
In laymans terms, it is clearly not proportionate that the presence of one male bodied person could put off 100s of women.
But in legal terms, proportionate means doing no more than is necessary to achieve the aim. In this case if the aim is trans inclusion, the mixed sex pool achieves this already. Thus any further changes to policy that disadvantage women are disciminatory and unjustified as alternative arrangements that achieve the aim are already in place.
It is not enough that the aim is legitmate, and so fulfillment by any means is always justified, it is necessary to balance the needs of the groups and the means available to meet the needs.
As I understand it, the burden would be on the council to prove that the unfavourable treatment of women could be objectively justitifed.
This would be hard to argue against for any other reason than 'kind validation of feelings/identity' because if transwomen cannot swim with males for safety reasons, then surely women cannot either.
We need local women to help challenge this (so not accused of vexatiousness) am not a local or I would be prepared to do it as I would love to swim but have issues from PTSD etc so womens places are necessary for me.