Hampstead Pond - Brave woman speaks

Yes, even the worked examples in the Act are ignored. I think women must have become invisible somehow.

Be nice to have an answer to that question but likely it’d be along the lines of raped women not being allowed to weaponise their trauma. ‘… attempt to ‘force trans exclusion’ ffs. Talk about clever framing when BRRC already has a trans group. Can I add this jewel of an item to the ‘hating men’ thread?

It is really a shame that given what must now be the hundreds of threads on FWR on how the single sex exemptions (SSE) work are still being discussed.

The law allows for single sex (ie biological fact) provision where it is proportionate.

So please can we stop talking about the law but about why some institutions and services think that single sex provision is NOT proportionate.

ie why does the committee think that in terms of women's swimming it isn't proportionate for it to provide single sex swimming (particularly in this case when there are other ponds). Why does the committee think biological women are less important than trans women (with or without a GRC?).

Why does the NHS think that single sex provision for women in not important? It is a huge organisation but has decided than trans women's rights are more important than biological women's rights.

Let alone toilet provision whether public, at work or in schools.

The law is there but it isn't being used.

We need to be discussing the capture of the decision makers.

Or, as has also been discussed, the fact that so many institutions, including the civil service, BBC etc., all seem to have somehow been infiltrated by those who think the rights of biological females are not as important as TW's.

Being onf FWR can feel a bit like Ground Hog Day.

Well said.

You are arguing with yourself again. You and I agree about what the law says, but have different aspirations as to its interpretation.

Your characterisation of the BRCC case as a 'clever framing' and a 'wedge' is sickening. Because the law has been turned into a dog's breakfast, a traumatised woman has been forced to call on the protection of sex discrimination legislation in the hope of getting help in a women-only setting. No wedge involved, because the service would be as well as, not instead of the trans-inclusive service.

I'm looking forward to seeing Counsel explain why it is so important to make sure that a rape victim be refused help unless she lets a man get involved in the process, and why it is only women who are refused a specialised service.

And don't forget the man in the picture - a TW who wants to be in the room while she shares her rape trauma even though he knows she doesn't want him there. WTAF is wrong with him?

And WTAF is wrong with you?

Hampstead women's pond isn't short of pick mes.

DadJoke
Are you talking about transwomen with or without a GRC?

I keep hearing Mr Bumble in Oliver Twist whenever I read a particular poster. "If that is what the law supposes, the law is an ass" Probably misquoting a bit.

Emotionalsupportviper · Today 14:47

And I certainly don't equate "being gender critical with woman" - I know plenty of men who are gender critical, too.

Yes, that describes me (a man).

DadJoke · Today 13:49

I know your views reflect you protected gender critical beliefs, but the law, with exceptions, treats trans women as women for the purposes of access to single-sex spaces, and trans men as men.

The law supports organisations which want to exclude transw, for the lawful purpose of preserving the privacy and dignity of women, if they wish to do so.

Plus - it isn't a "trans-exclusionary centre" as far as I am aware. Trans-identifying women (ie "transmen") will be accepted because they are female.

I've tried google, thanks.

It just comes up with the usual circular arguments and feelings in people's heads. Nothing real at all.

And gender reassignment* is a protected characteristic in that people can't be discriminated against because of it - "gender identity" isn't protected at all. You can't legally protect something that has no definition in law.

*Gender reassignment is very specific - and even then the Act specified that people with GRCs didn't have carte blanche to barge in anywhere and everywhere. The safety, dignity and privacy of sex was paramount, and where this would be compromised, it was legal to make exceptions excluding men from women's spaces, and women from men's.

And I certainly don't equate "being gender critical with woman" - I know plenty of men who are gender critical, too. I equate being gender critical with being truthful about the effects of biology ie men are male, women are female , and nobody can change sex.

Just don't conflate gender with sex. Stick with sex as the distinguishing characteristic - it can be observed and validated, unlike "gender'.

An RCC that is single-sex is not by definition 'for gender critical women'.

RCC deciding to set up a trans-exclusionary centre for gender critical women (Rowling has).

Careful, your ideology is showing.....

No. The first statement is always true, the second, plus case law, determines the validity of the exceptions. For example, a support group for people with cervical cancer can clearly exclude trans women.

I am reasonably well versed in the case law around this, with Mackereth being the most recent. Certainly all the cases referred to in the article, plus FPW and Sex Matters. If you know of others, I'll take a look.

The most interesting will be the attempt to force trans exclusion on the Brighton Rape Crisis Centre. The law says that a provider CAN exclude trans women, and I can se no issue under the law with a RCC deciding to set up a trans-exclusionary centre for gender critical women (Rowling has).

This case will determine if they can be forced to do so. It's quite a clever framing, because it doesn't demand that trans women are excluded, merely that there be a trans-exclusive group. It's a wedge. I look forward to seeing the judgment.

@DadJoke

... the law, with exceptions, treats trans women as women for the purposes of access to single-sex spaces...

...protected characteristics ...... interact in a complex way in the EqA

Your second statement is true - and that complex interaction will determine whether your first statement is always, never, or ever, true.

Are you aware of any case law yet?

It does not. They are both protected characteristics, which interact in a complex way in the EqA. Just don't conflate "being gender critical" with woman.

There is a host of literature in medical and scientific journals on the nature of gender identity. Try google.

I know your views reflect you protected gender critical beliefs, but the law, with exceptions, treats trans women as women for the purposes of access to single-sex spaces, and trans men as men.

Yes, I just kind of want a court case (even though I know how difficult and stressful they can be for those involved) to see how the discrimination stuff is dealt with.

Actually, I can't seem to find the link. Perhaps it was on a thread where this was discussed tangentially? I've been searching, but can't find anything.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13113185/Women-wanting-ban-trans-swimmers-Hampsteads-female-bathing-pond-told-committee-illegal.html

The policy - which has been welcomed by the Kenwood Ladies' Pond Association (KLPA) - comes after an online survey consultation on attitudes to gender identity received nearly 40,000 responses.

But 18,459 were disregarded as invalid, on the basis that those respondents did not answer any questions other than to identify themselves and declare the reason for their interest in the survey.

Not annoyed with you at all (saving that for TRAs and Labour for making this mess) just fascinated. I think that right will prevail in the courts, in that institutions will not be forced to abolish women-only spaces, provided that dignified provision is also made for transwomen. This is at issue in the David Lloyd case and the Survivors Network case.

MarkWithaC · Today 13:14

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

There are some links earlier in the thread.

Why does "gender identity" trump biological sex, @DadJoke ?

And what IS "gender identity" anyway? No-one has yet given a definition of "woman" which would include anything relating to biological men.

OK, I seem to be annoying you, but I'm just having genuine trouble grasping all this. I'm not a lawyer and I clearly don't have a first-class brain. I am trying though.

What really trips me up is when theilltemperedclavecinist says
'He can however claim indirect discrimination on the basis that he doesn't have a single sex pond to swim in like the other men (GR discrimination) or like the women (sex discrimination).'
and
'A TW with a GRC has female legal sex for discrimination purposes (assessed as relative disadvantage, not non-identical outcomes). Excluding him from the ladies' pond is direct GR discrimination.'

So, in either of these two cases, is a man going to win the right to swim in the Ladies Pond?

I believe we've covered this in various ways, but to recap: it's OK to exclude him as a man, even though he's a woman, because his manliness is causing an otherwise insuperable disadvantage to someone with a PC (compared to others without that PC), and, as a woman, he is not excessively disadvantaged compared to women without the PC of GR, or compared to men, in that his swimming provision is good enough (whilst not quite as good as theirs).

I do HTH. If there's ever a court case on all this I will be absolutely agog.