Hampstead Pond - Brave woman speaks

They are not women, they have no understanding of what being a woman is, only their own male perspective on what they think it feels like.

We are just arguing about the meaning of a word, woman is an adult human female, and not a feeling or an identity to be appropriated.

You obviously think it means something much more nebulous and ill-defined.

Why do men never have the humility to accept they don’t and can’t understand something? It is so fucking arrogant.

Do we have a source for this? I mean a primary and solid source.

Would this be the winning argument in a court case? Or would a man saying he's a woman potentially win on grounds of exclusion from the women's pond being discriminatory, because he is (in the legal fiction) a woman?

DadJoke · Today 11:50

That is, if the service provider choses to do so, they can exclude trans women from the women's pool if it's proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Even if it were in this case, and I seriously doubt it, they have chosen not to, as voted for by their members.

A rigged election, with all of those not agreeing with the premise being excluded and their votes discarded.

I believe you've identified the problem. If they go in the mixed pond there'll be men 😱. So they must go in the women's pond. But once there are TWs in the women's pond, it's become another mixed pond! Oh no!

Solution: tiny individual ponds. One TW per pond.

No. They are a cohort of men known collectively as transwomen. There is no disadvantage of them as they have other pools that they can use appropriately.

Men who have cross-sex gender identity can swim with women (of any gender identity or none) in the mixed sex pond.

Yes! I forget whether it was here or Twitter but yesterday I saw somebody making the point that they'd seen someone making these points over a fairly short period:

• I identify as a woman, so I am a trans woman.
• Trans women are women, so I am a woman.
• They're called Women's Sports, not female sports, and I am a woman, so I belong in Women's Sports, not Men's.

And that's where #bekind rather than #betruthful gets us.

This is the crux of it, isn't it. The manipulation of language, and the concomitant legal fiction of a GRC making some men 'women' in a specific legal context.

The only way for that to make any sense is if anyone can identify as anything they like, at which point language becomes useless as a means of communicating.

Excluding some women from the women's pool because some other women want them excluded is not legitimate or proportionate, and their legal advice apparently said the same thing. The statutory guidance makes this clear.

The only way this can be tested in law is to set up a single sex swimming pool session, exclude trans women from it, and then have a trans woman sue. There are some pick-mes who might even help you with that.

No. They are women, and want to swim with women. That's a disadvantage.

A lot of the issue here is that institutions include TWs not because they, or users, want to, but because they wrongly believe the law compels them to. Its a mess.

This.

The misinformation disseminated far and wide by Stonewall has convinced many institutions, businesses and organisations that the law says that they have to allow any man who wants it, access to the women's spaces, no matter how inappropriate it may be, because . . . you know . . ."trans" . . .

That's a pity. It does sound like someone felt they had to tack that on.
There's a BBCone, sadly not on iPlayer at the mo, called Swimming Through the Seasons. It's a while since I watched it, but I don't remember any lip service in that one.
If you can track it down, it's delightful.

Enabling Orthodox women to swim by ensuring that single sex remains single sex does not put transwomen at any disadvantage compared to other swimmers of either sex. They would have two pools to choose from. Orthodox women would have only one pool to choose from.

The TWs would claim they cannot possibly go in the men's pond. I don't think we need to fight them on this ground to win the argument.

This is what I think, and as far as my understanding goes at the moment; I admit I'm struggling with the finer points e.g. if a man identifying as a woman would/could 'win' in court the right to use a women's pond depending on having or not having a GRC.

This is about people in France, not in Hampstead

@DadJoke

So, you accept that they don't have to exclude trans women, and have chosen not to do so?

Yes, of course. And obviously people who share a PC can assemble and exclude others, if there's a LAPA, which there usually is. Excluding gays because you don't like them isn't one, though.

The pond problem is one of competing LAPAs. You could let the Jewish ladies swim once a week. Or you could let the TWs swim once a week - when they would be joined by the women who don't mind mixed sex bathing. (And there's a mixed pond as well, of course).

A lot of the issue here is that institutions include TWs not because they, or users, want to, but because they wrongly believe the law compels them to. Its a mess.

Do you think that a group with a protected characteristic (say Christian, Muslim, gay people or people with disabilities) should be able to exclude another group (say Christian, Muslim, gay people or people with disabilities)?

I am not a legal expert, but the answer to your question has to be yes in some instances.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has to be a practising member of the Church of England with years of experience as an Anglican clergyman. At the moment he also has to be male. It's exceedingly unlikely that a gay man, even if celibate, would get this job.

A person who is registered blind is not going to be able to get a job as a commercial pilot.

The reason for excluding transwomen from the women's pond is not because of the protected characteristic of being trans, it's because they are male. There are lots of cases where it's proportionate and sensible for safeguarding reasons to exclude males, no matter what their gender identity.

A solution in this case would be to have a weekly swim for Orthodox Jews, just as our local pool has swimming times set aside for Muslim women.

If you think that some women need a special single sex session its because you acknowledge they are being excluded, from a facility that is supposed to be for women.

If a facility is for women and they are in a state of undress, that facility can be single sex.
As there is a single sex facility for men that excludes women, then they are discriminating against women by making the women's pond mixed sex.

Enabling Orthodox women to swim by ensuring that single sex remains single sex does not put transwmen at any disadvantage compared to other swimmers of either sex. They would have _two pools to choose from. Orthodox women would have only one pool to choose from.

So, you accept that they don't have to exclude trans women, and have chosen not to do so?

Do you think that a group with a protected characteristic (say Christian, Muslim, gay people or people with disabilities) should be able to exclude another group (say Christian, Muslim, gay people or people with disabilities)?

There are plenty of people who are uncomfortable changing with gay people - is the solution a separate changing room for gay people?

A solution in this case would be to have a weekly swim for Orthodox Jews, just as our local pool has swimming times set aside for Muslim women.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1022191/feeling-uncomfortable-around-lgbt-france/

@PriOn1 yes, IW confirmed on Twitter - with much glee - that they had visited the women's pond several times. I think there were screenshots of their tweets on the original Ponds MN thread.

@DadJoke our interpretations are the same. I've acknowledged that excluding TWs is discrimination and that the solution is to avoid discrimination in the first place.

@theilltemperedclavecinist you've misinterpreted the Act. As the statutory guidance says:

If a service provider provides single- or separate sex services for women
and men, or provides services differently to women and men, they should
treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present.
However, the Act does permit the service provider to provide a different
service or exclude a person from the service who is proposing to undergo, is
undergoing or who has undergone gender reassignment. This will only be
lawful where the exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

That is, if the service provider choses to do so, they can exclude trans women from the women's pool if it's proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Even if it were in this case, and I seriously doubt it, they have chosen not to, as voted for by their members.