City of London Consultation Results - they can't get away with this

[2010Equality]

Man Friday!

The City of London consultation on “gender identity” and single-sex facilities (including Hampstead Ponds, toilets and changing rooms at running track, facilities at the Barbican etc... ) results are out .

It's bad. The policy has been adopted on the basis of the flawed survey and misreading of the equality act.

My thread here

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1130973355849461765.html

They can't get away with this!

[2010Equality]

The documents are here

democracy.cityoflondon.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=86085

[PlayYouLikeAShark]

Judicial review.

[RubberTreePlant]

Sadly, it isn't really a surprise.

[GirlDownUnder]

@2010Equality hopefully you’ll see I’ve cross linked threads, so we don’t loose the message.

See www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3592045-ffs?msgid=87236905

[HandsOffMyRights]

This is bullshit. It's a fix.
I hope Andrew Gillighan has seen it.

[BernardBlacksWineIcelolly]

they rejected 50% of the responses? how is that that OK?

you ask people a question and then refuse to listen to the answer?

[AnyOldPrion]

Rejecting biological sex as a basis? The company are about as independent as West Yorkshire Police.

Appalling that this is being done. And if I lived close enough, I’d join any other self-ID’d men and attend the men’s pool as often as I could until the outcry stopped this utter abomination.

And to all those kindly advocating for mixed sex facilities, alongside male and female, you’re wasting your time.

[AnyOldPrion]

”Those who disagreed tended to give reasons in the text, whereas those who agreed just ticked the box”

There’s a lesson to be learned here. I wasted my time filling in logical objections. I felt it important to present what I considered to be valid reasons. These very likely were then used as an excuse to reject my vote and ignore my voice.

Anyone could have selected random London postcodes and gone through ticking the boxes hundreds of times - way faster than filling it in in good faith and those were accepted without question.

In fact, the organisers could easily have rigged it. A very small group of people, voting over and over would easily skew the result. In fact, it’s astonishing if it was still considered necessary to rig the result further.

[Beamur]

Hardly a surprise. Flawed consultation leads to skewed policy. I hardly know why they bothered to consult. The thin veil of transparency is so transparent we can all see through it.

[JackyHolyoake]

UK case law defines biological sex as a congruence of chromosomes, gonads and genitals [Corbett v. Corbett].

UK case law also makes it clear that "that the comparator for a transgender person claiming discrimination in relation to gender re-assignment is not the sex which they are seeking transition to but that which they are seeking transition from." [ forwomen.scot/30/03/2019/tie-letter-legal-response/ ]

Further, the Equality Act 2010 defines the sexes thus [ s.212(1) EqA. ]:

a man is a male of any age
a woman is a female of any age.

The City of London organisation should now make it very clear that none of its former sex-segregated spaces are designated as single sex and that all are mixed sex. All signage that says Men Only or Women Only should be removed and replaced with signs that clearly explain this. Failure to apply this decision to all facilities for both sexes equally amounts to sex discrimination.

[Needmoresleep]

Man Friday, I am so sorry. Thank you for you efforts.

I complained about the Consultation but never received a response.

[HumberElla]

This is just awful. It really is a declaration of hatred for women.

[EweSurname]

So how can this be challenged?

[KatvonHostileExtremist]

They rejected 50% of responses? That's bizarre....

[Pepvixen]

This is surely ripe for judicial review? I'd contribute to a crowdfunder.

[HumberElla]

I’m assuming that the 50% that were rejected on the basis of ‘not answering the question’ were those that pointed out the flawed survey structure, the conflation sex/gender language in the question and highlighted the blatant misrepresentation of the Equality Act.

Those responses were probably binned.

[BernardBlacksWineIcelolly]

This is being pushed through by zealots wedded to sexist and regressive ideology. To me it's the same as a local politician using their position to impose aspects of sharia law or fundamentalist christianity on their community.

what checks and balances do we have to prevent this?

public toilets in the city of london are now mixed sex. I know there are rules about mixed sex toilets for work, do they apply to public toilets? are city of london now breaking the law?

[Ereshkigal]

Yes I'll also contribute to a crowdfunder for a judicial review. Outrageous

[R0wantrees]

Edward Lord has been responsible for the City of Londn Consultation.
Lord spoke at Jane Fae's trans rights activist conference, 'We're Still Here' last September.
Lord discussed how his consultation would be presented at the time.

OP TheHarpySings attended & reported:
(extract)
"4) Equalities Act

So… there was a kind of informal meeting during lunchtime about The Equalities Act which was being run by everyone’s favourite advocate for extreme porn, Jane Fae. Edward Lord turned up, straight from a meeting with the City of London Corp. PlEASE NOTE THAT FAE AND LORD DID NOT WANT THIS SECTION TWEETED.

Edward Lord. He was dressed like Tweedledum. Or, if I’m feeling generous, a Mario Brother that doesn’t get invited to Xmas dinner anymore.

Mr Lord was very bumfaced about the Andrew Gilligan article about him in July and said that opposition to the GRA consultation just wanted to “cause mayhem.” He directly mentioned the Man Friday Hampstead Pond stuff.

Apparently “there have been no incidents of men turning up to the women’s pond but Man Friday turned up to the men’s pond and demanded admission- by force if necessary.”

As of 8/9/18, 15.5k people had completed the attitudes survey.

Lord said that TW were entitled to the protected characteristic “Woman”- he said the Gov dept on woman and equalities has confirmed this. Apparently the brave and stunning vexatious litigator Giuliana Kendall has something to do with this being confirmed.

Edward Lord is worried about the 125 elected members of the London assembly or whatever the fuck Londoners have governing the city. Not all of them are onside. He is worried that all of this is going to be discussed at committee and that “terfs are going to protest”.

Jane Fae said that JF has been in contact w/ YHA and GirlGuiding. Fae is of the opinion that the law doesn’t distinguish gender and sex. They are not defined and parliament will not define them.

The TRAs are fully prepared to take local councils to court of they try to invoke EA2010 for reasons of sex. JF was nodding at Giuliana when JF said this.

James Morton (Scottish Trans Alliance) said to be “strategic about test cases to ensure strong case law”.

Edward Lord agreed. He also said that the City of London Corp city solicitor and the Chief Exec are “strong allies”.

Regards the consultation doc put out by the City of London Corp… Lord implied that they were going to go through the answers and cherry pick the the qualitative snapshots.

One of the Mermaids mums in attendance said the “banner of concerned mothers of vulnerable children shouldn’t be captured by bigots”. Lord is meeting officers about how data is presented and is “conscious of that line of argument”

Jane Fae said the GC side are spreading a myth of predatory males- which doesn’t happen (!!! Lolz Karen White). And also spreading the myth that that TW are paedophiles (Loz Karen White x2).

Then (and Fae didn’t want this tweeted) apparently, there ARE terrible people exploiting The Equalities Act. And they are…

Man Friday
We Need To Talk
Fair Play for Women

According to Fae, all of the above have broken laws and engaged in upskirting and crotch shots of TW. Fae talked about debating Amy Desir of Man Friday about refuges. Amy talked about how female socialisation essentially stops us from refusing TW in our spaces.

JF then asked people not to tweet this next bit because it is libellous: Amy Desir took her husband into the Next changing rooms to commit voyeurism.
Fae (shouting): “Who is the pervert now?!!”

JF hopes that Amy and Man Friday are prosecuted." (continues)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3398737-We-re-Still-Here-Conference-8th-September-A-report-from-the-inside

[MsJeminaPuddleduck]

I'd contribute to a crowdfunder. It's the blatant abuse of power by arrogant elites that really ticks me off here

[R0wantrees]

The City of London organisation should now make it very clear that none of its former sex-segregated spaces are designated as single sex and that all are mixed sex. All signage that says Men Only or Women Only should be removed and replaced with signs that clearly explain this. Failure to apply this decision to all facilities for both sexes equally amounts to sex discrimination.

Signs for toilets and changing rooms must be accessible to people whose first language is not English, people of all ages and those with limited literacy skills.

It would be interesting to know what the Campaign for Plain English advise.

The change must be made absolutely explicit.

Lord's City of London Consultation was only publicised online via social media so many of those women using the City of London facilties will not have been aware.

(I thought it was extraordinary at the time not to put posters up in the facilities to advise)

[BernardBlacksWineIcelolly]

God, I’d forgotten how unhinged Fae’s behaviour sounded in that Twitter thread. Also libellous

I think this is going to have to go to court isn’t it? But it needs someone with obvious skin in the game to front it

• women whose religious faith means they can’t use mixed sex toilets
  
• women whose experience of male violence means that mean they can’t use mixed sex toilets
  

Those are probably the easiest to represent I’d have thought?

[Trousering]

The Equality analysis statement positions the impact on trans as direct but on other users as indirect.

So that's a hierarchically determined position, anyone expecting single sex facilities are assumed to be impacted only indirectly by their removal.

That's not really equality is it? To relegate the existing users of single sex facilities to only be indirectly relevant to the policy and to prioritise as directly relevant users who will be, by inclusion, rendering the single sex facilities no longer single sex is prioritising the needs of the opposite sex and ignoring the reasons for single sex without any explanation other than they are "indirect"

[R0wantrees]

Mumsnet thread when Consultation launched.

OP SwearyG wrote Thu 26-Jul-18 :
"City of London Corporation consultation is out (this covers Hampstead Ponds)

And it's awful

No mention of sex, no mention of impact on any stakeholders, all leading questions, and horrible clear intention to filter.

This will affect the wonderful space at Hampstead Ponds so I urge you all to complete it. I will be speaking to the Corporation about its clear bias and lack of adherence to guidelines."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3317922-City-of-London-Corporation-consultation-is-out-this-covers-Hampstead-Ponds

I know SwearyG spent a great deal of time and efforts trying to raise the many and various issues with the way the consultation was created.

[R0wantrees]

I think this is going to have to go to court isn’t it? But it needs someone with obvious skin in the game to front it

- women whose religious faith means they can’t use mixed sex toilets
- women whose experience of male violence means that mean they can’t use mixed sex toilets

Those are probably the easiest to represent I’d have thought?

Also women who use the facilities regualrly but were not made aware that the consutation was taking place or the consequences of it.