Sex Matters - Hampstead Heath Ponds -

It's literal violence innit? 🙄

The focus group consultation found that Making the ponds mixed-sex spaces was the least preferred option.... Some also feared this option might be used as a compromise if the debate between single-sex and trans-inclusive became too polarised.

If the CLC cannot find a legal way of allowing the special men into the women's pond, they will revert to biological sex not mixed sex.

Melarus, the term 'pile on' has negative connotations of people being offensive and bullying in their responses. On the whole, you haven't had offensive or nasty replies, have you? I think most of us have been polite and factual in our posts.
It's true that, as you foresaw, most posters here disagree with you, and have individually expressed that disagreement firmly, but I don't think 'a whole lot of people firmly disagreeing with me as I expected they would ' constitutes a pile on.

😆 totally. Instant outrage

They won't make the three ponds mixed sex. The men won't want it.

None of the men, including those who are in denial.

Quite. As ever, it shows that everyone knows exactly who are the men and who are the women.

I actually think that the quickest way for women to get their pond back would be to petition to make all the ponds mixed sex😘

What happened when ManFriday joined was instructive. Women who had just put a wig and a beard on and said that they were men were not allowed and ISTR the police were called. How is this different from men who identify as women using the women’s pool?

You're expecting honesty from people that you just decided would sell women down the river as soon as a man kicks off because he's denied entry to their pool.

What a shame you don't expect honesty from the trans identified men instead.

And, we aren’t having a go at you… we love you and support you and wish you well. But we think your argument is weak and ill thought through.

If we point out the flaws in it, there’s a chance you might change your mind. Please don’t take it personally.

I doubt that they will ever make all 3 ponds mixed sex. The numerous gay men who value the men's pond will never allow that.

I’ve no intention to pile on, I just prefer that people are honest about what they think.

I'm going out now and don't have time to answer all these - you'll have to pile on me in my absence! I'll just say that yes, I do feel sorry for women who are unable to use the pond as it stands. But clearly the current arrangement is not working, and as a PP said, I'd rather they were just honest and upfront about the fact that the ponds are essentially all mixed sex.

Good question. “But I’m a laydeeeee”. Is there something more threatening about “trans women” do you think, @Melarus?

They must already have ways of dealing with people who shouldn't be going in. What do they do if a bunch of drunk lads shows up and tries to get in?

What I’d like, Melarus, is for you to own what you want. You know “trans women” are men, and can foresee them being violent if thwarted, no? So you think other men will balance it out if it’s mixed sex?

If the female gate staff are expected to deal with violent men I’d expect some support from the Kenwood Ponds Association or whatever they are.

Thank you.

Do you realise that if that non confrontational approach is chosen, you have supported allowing men to bully women to get into a single sex space?

Again, do you think violent or aggressive men should just be waved on into the women’s pond?

If the Ladies' pond is strictly single-sex and a male tries to get in and is challenged, my worries are 100% for the female gate staff who have to tell him no.

Because he is a threat, right?

I was wondering when the butch lesbians would appear

I've never been to the Women's Pond in Hampstead, but in the past I knew a few butch lesbians who were regulars there. Never had a problem.
Never had to undergo a humiliating or intrusive process. A woman in the women's pond, no big deal. Same for all the other women who did not conform to binary gender stereotypes - no big deal.

If all men could be trusted to respect women's space, it would still be no big deal.
Let's keep our focus on the source of the problem, and stop using butch lesbians etc. as straw ..er. people..

Why do you keep insisting it's about the men?

If the Ladies' pond is strictly single-sex and a male tries to get in and is challenged, my worries are 100% for the female gate staff who have to tell him no.

If a trans man or androgynous, butch or non-binary woman tries to get in and is challenged, my worries are for her potentially having to undergo an intrusive and humiliating process of verifying her biological sex.

Do you give absolutely not one shit at all about the women who feel unable to use the ponds at all with that approach?

Having said the above, I'm all for corporations being honest and honestly labelling spaces. So if all the ponds are in fact mixed-sex they should be labelled as such. That way it won't just be the law-breaking men sharing spaces with women which will be safer than it being only the ones who don't give a fuck about the law or women's safety being there.

Edited to add: Obviously it would be better if women can have some basic rights and have access to statistically safer single-sex spaces (also allowing many religious women to access public life). However it's about time organisations like Morrisons are held liable for lying to the public and causing harm (Morrisons allowed the 6ft5 Dolatowski into their 'womens' toilets to attack a child, which she very well might not have used, or used with her Dad if it was accurately labelled 'mixed sex').

One wonders what other laws these men feel should be optional. Such as, you know, indecent exposure, I'm sure we can all think of other things that men might do if they're not inclined to think laws mean much. Especially laws protecting women.

Generally speaking once someone's shown they're not inclined to follow the law on one minor thing it tells you something about them. E.g. Wayne Couzens - got away with indecent exposure, went on to murder. It's not fucking rocket science to see that had he been rightly detained and prosecuted for breaking the law the first time, the second offence would have been less likely / not happened.