Hampstead Pond - Brave woman speaks

How desperate. And it was deleted so no one will ever see. How sad.

I did read it but tbh I've forgotten already what it said. 'Blah blah blah, utterly unmemorable genderwhiffle'.

Well that's us told Lol

It was a TRA hoping to necro an old thread that was one post off being locked and therefore get the last word. I can't remember exactly what was said and didn't think it worth remembering, given nobody could have responded to it. Just seemed very odd.

Someone bumped the original Man Friday thread this evening, deleted post so not sure what was said.

Funny, I have scrolled past a lot of the later posts in this thread for exactly that reason: they say nothing new or original and have no reasoned arguments, only boring assertions that the poster is going to carry on with his irrational beliefs, whatever we say and however we challenge him.

I understand the idea of the lurkers, but even they must get bored.

That said, the Benny Hill theme idea did offer something of a distraction.

Anyway, the ponds.

@SinnerBoy made a very interesting post on page 12:

This makes interesting reading. If Kenwood Ponds has ignored email/s, or failed to justify properly their decision, then they will be in breach of legislation.

If those women had a genuine reason (as covered in the EA2010) as to why they can no longer use the ladies’ pond and have challenged it, then it looks like those running the pond should have given consideration to that challenge. They could, of course, claim they had done so, but they would be lying, I think. There would be no evidence of discussion, given that they threw away 19,000 responses that probably contained multiple such challenges.

I suspect this could be influenced by a legal case. It just needs someone appropriate to come forward. Someone is now challenging the rape crisis situation in Edinburgh and there will be similarly suitable candidates here, but as always, it takes someone both strong and who qualifies to carry that weight.

Return to Bunbury, please.

Can we please just ignore them- they will soon go away.

As I've mentioned before - these men are just attention seeking and by engaging with them we are validating them.

That ^^

I do the same.

That’s why they do it I guess, that and to upset women. My eyes glaze over now with some posters and increasingly I tend to just scroll past their comments. Some are on so much it starts to look like a full time job.

Is it possible that responding to hijakers is why so many threads get hijacked and we end up not talking about the OP but about what the hijacker wants us to talk about. As well as using up our time and energy when it could be going into something more proactive, useful.

You would have to be a blind man on a flying horse to regard RMW as visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a non-transsexual person of that gender.

Not 1 in 1,000 would "pass"

I take issue with 'visually', too. Obviously RMW either doesn't know, or believes it should be ignored, that men smell different to women. Not masculine cologne/feminine perfume. Different body odours.

I struggled to make sense of RMW's statement because I understood ...where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a non-transsexual person of that gender... to mean that if a transwman is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a non-transsexual man, they should be treated as men. Because, apart from clothes, hair, makeup etc, that is the case - males look male. Not necessarily masculine, but certainly male.

But then very little RMW says makes sense.

I'd ask who is going to make the decision that this male person completely 'passes' - I loathe that term. But I know the answer.

It will be the male person themselves. Like Alex, with his beard, 'expanding the bandwidth of womanhood'.

Ffs, women have more important things in their lives and in their most vulnerable moments than dealing with the many, many, many issues of these men.

Exactly. Let's not pretend that that doesn't apply to all but a tiny minority. And misguided though it was, it was clearly intended for "stealth", not for males to perform dominance displays in women's spaces.

BTW, I love RMW's quote from the Code of Practice:

“Service providers should be aware that where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a non-transsexual person of that gender, they should normally be treated according to their acquired gender, unless there are strong reasons to the contrary.”

You would have to be a blind man on a flying horse to regard RMW as visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a non-transsexual person of that gender.

Dadjoke

For the purpose of argument please give an example of a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim which excludes all male people, including biologically male trans people who want access, from a single sex space for women.

You say you believe there are such limited examples, what are they? There are lots of examples of single sex spaces given in the notes to the Equality Act if you need ideas.

Why do you think that the EHRC produced this non-interim guidance? Maybe it was raining and the boys and girls at EHRC couldn't go outside to play so they wrote it to pass the time.

@DadJoke

Are you seriously asking why the EHRC produce guidance? I mean, if you can't figure that out, you're a few eggs short of a dozen. They are doing their job.

My reference to the boys and girls at the EHRC not being able to play outside didn't suggest to you that I might be being sarcastic?

It makes zero difference to the fact that statutory guidance trumps non-statutory guidance. As to why the non-statutory guidance is so flawed, I have no idea.

I have already made clear that non-statutory guidance can be completely ignored if it is in conflict with the statutory Code of Practice. It is your opinion, along with that of RMW and Katie Glendinning that the guidance is flawed. Others disagree.

Which of these arguments are you unable to follow? That where the statutory COP and the non-statutory one conflict you follow the statutory one? That the statutory one has weight in law and the other doesn't?

I clearly agree with your first sentence. The second one is wrong. Otherwise TRAs wouldn't be running around screaming their heads off over the non-statutory guidance for schools.

To become statutory, the code has to be put before parliament. It then has to pass both houses. That's not going to happen with this non-statutory guidance.

It isn't a code. It is guidance. HTH

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/3/section/14

Yes, we all know the process for a statutory code of practice. Why is it relevant?

Spanish women.
Japanese women.
Kazakh women.

Good question.

This makes interesting reading. If Kenwood Ponds has ignored email/s, or failed to justify properly their decision, then they will be in breach of legislation. I hope that one of the aggrieved women picks up on this.

• Probably best to consult a solicitor!

4 - there is no requirement to show that a majority of service users would benefit from the exercise of an exemption to exclude people with the PC of GR. A single letter or email from a woman who believes that including men with the PC of GR would remove her dignity or privacy or from a single Muslim or Orthodox Jewish woman who states that the presence of a biological man prevents her from accessing the service is enough for the provider to review their policy.

5 - any single sex provider who fails to justify their policy of allowing people with the PC of GR to use the facilities that they choose when challenged by a user from 4 will probably be acting unlawfully.

I'm sure JKR is absolutely quaking in her boots that Beira's Place is dependant on funding from TRA's and captured institutions....

.....oh, wait......