Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Sex Matters - Hampstead Heath Ponds -

720 replies

SexRealismBeliefs · 15/12/2025 18:42

Sex Matters, a charity that campaigns for single-sex rights, will argue that the City of London Corporation is breaching equality law by allowing trans women to use Kenwood Ladies’ Pond on Hampstead Heath.

Hearing this Wednesday.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/cceca8ca-4167-4b04-875a-40ddacfea782?shareToken=e9fe25a546d20835f1a5a66564cbf27b

Hampstead women’s pond sued over transgender access

Sex Matters claims that the City of London Corporation is defending a policy that defies the Supreme Court ruling on single-sex services

https://www.thetimes.com/article/cceca8ca-4167-4b04-875a-40ddacfea782?shareToken=e9fe25a546d20835f1a5a66564cbf27b

OP posts:
Thread gallery
28
Melarus · 30/01/2026 20:53

Too much of a pile on to reply to everyone individually... Look, the reason I voted to make every pond mixed sex was because it seemed like the simplest way to allow inclusion for everyone who wanted it, and abide by the law as set down by the SC judgement (which I don't believe the current setup does) - while still avoiding the rather horrific scenario of swimmers being asked to confirm their biological sex at the gate, in case of ambiguity. Because, in this day and age, there would absolutely be ambiguity, and challenges, and plenty of nastiness.

Shortshriftandlethal · 30/01/2026 19:55

Melarus · 30/01/2026 19:08

You're forgetting the large numbers of liberal-minded Londoners who want to keep the ponds as they are now, ie notionally single-sex but in practice trans-inclusive. (Not how I voted btw.) Unless you're telling me that the 33,000 people who voted that way in the consultation are all TRA ringers? Mmm-hmmm.

Show quote history

I suspect that the respondents to the survey did not have their identities confirmed, and so the survey was subject to a concerted campaign of obfuscation.. I also imagine that quite a number of respondents are confused about what a transwoman actually is. They think, judging from much previous evidence, that a transwoman is a woman who identifies as a man, not an actual man.

There is no such thing as single sex if men are permitted into women only spaces and places.

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 30/01/2026 19:51

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

Shortshriftandlethal · 30/01/2026 19:49

Melarus · 30/01/2026 18:07

It seems to me that we can't possibly make everybody happy, given the current state of affairs, so throwing the doors open to everyone would be the least bad option. I know many here disagree. But at least now you've heard a different view.

Show quote history

Women would be perfectly happy with arrangements if their women only facilities remained women only. The solution for women is not to make everything mixed sex. That may well exclude quite a few women altogether.

And If men with trans identities themselves were happy wth mixed sex they'd use the mixed sex pond, already, wouldn't they? However, Some men with trans identities are only happy when they are shoving it in women's faces and making them feel uncomfortable and/or defeated. They don't identify 'with' women at all, only 'as' women. They clearly have little or no respect.

ConstanzeMozart · 30/01/2026 19:23

Melarus · 30/01/2026 19:08

You're forgetting the large numbers of liberal-minded Londoners who want to keep the ponds as they are now, ie notionally single-sex but in practice trans-inclusive. (Not how I voted btw.) Unless you're telling me that the 33,000 people who voted that way in the consultation are all TRA ringers? Mmm-hmmm.

Show quote history

No, but the numbers and percentages are, as pointed out on here, a little odd to say the least, and don’t seem to add up.
The questions were ambiguously worded and fairly likely to have contributed to strange answers.
But more to the point, it doesn’t matter how many people said yes to TIMs in a consultation: for one thing, there is the law, and for another there is (again as pointed out here, more than once) the inconvenient truth that you can’t transfer consent.

Theeyeballsinthesky · 30/01/2026 19:17

Melarus · 30/01/2026 19:08

You're forgetting the large numbers of liberal-minded Londoners who want to keep the ponds as they are now, ie notionally single-sex but in practice trans-inclusive. (Not how I voted btw.) Unless you're telling me that the 33,000 people who voted that way in the consultation are all TRA ringers? Mmm-hmmm.

Show quote history

Well of course they should be trans inclusive

the men's pond should be fully inclusive of TW and the women's pond fully inclusive of TM

Melarus · 30/01/2026 19:08

ConstanzeMozart · 30/01/2026 18:12

Oh, I'm always hearing different views, don't worry about that.

TIMs are fewer in number than women with reasons to need or want single-sex facilities, so how on that basis would you justify calling organising life around them the least bad option?

Show quote history

You're forgetting the large numbers of liberal-minded Londoners who want to keep the ponds as they are now, ie notionally single-sex but in practice trans-inclusive. (Not how I voted btw.) Unless you're telling me that the 33,000 people who voted that way in the consultation are all TRA ringers? Mmm-hmmm.

HildegardP · 30/01/2026 18:39

Melarus · 30/01/2026 18:07

It seems to me that we can't possibly make everybody happy, given the current state of affairs, so throwing the doors open to everyone would be the least bad option. I know many here disagree. But at least now you've heard a different view.

Show quote history

A mixed-sex pond already exists. At least try to know what you're bletherering about.

HildegardP · 30/01/2026 18:36

JoanOgden · 30/01/2026 13:28

Clearly the consultation stats are almost entirely valueless, but I have a 70-something female friend who swims in the Ladies' Pond and she and her friends are all fine with allowing TW in and say that it's only a minority of regular users who are unhappy with this.

Of course there are probably women who are unhappy but wouldn't say, so I'm not suggesting that this is scientific either, but I don't think we should assume that the majority of regular users want to exclude TW. (Of course they might change their mind if confronted with one of the more aggressive exhibitionist TW who pop up in some places.)

Has it occurred to your friend that the women who don't want two mixed-sex ponds & no female-only pond are forced to self-exclude?
By one's 70s one really ought to understand that one's own consent is not transferable.

MarieDeGournay · 30/01/2026 18:21

Melarus · 30/01/2026 18:07

It seems to me that we can't possibly make everybody happy, given the current state of affairs, so throwing the doors open to everyone would be the least bad option. I know many here disagree. But at least now you've heard a different view.

Show quote history

Well yes, throwing the doors to everything open to everyone is a possible solution, and I have heard it before, as I'm sure most posters on here have.
It's not that having everything mixed sex has never crossed our mindsSmile
It's just that it seems like the least good option, for many reasons.

But it would mean acceding to the disproportionate demands of a tiny number of people, not because their demands are reasonable, but because they, as you put it, stirred up a hornet's nest, with a side order of threats and violence.

For that reason alone, apart from the merits or demerits of sex-segregated spaces, I think giving so much influence over social and political issues to such a small number of people just because they are more effective hornet's-nest-stirrers is not a good option.

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 30/01/2026 18:18

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

ConstanzeMozart · 30/01/2026 18:12

Melarus · 30/01/2026 18:07

It seems to me that we can't possibly make everybody happy, given the current state of affairs, so throwing the doors open to everyone would be the least bad option. I know many here disagree. But at least now you've heard a different view.

Show quote history

Oh, I'm always hearing different views, don't worry about that.

TIMs are fewer in number than women with reasons to need or want single-sex facilities, so how on that basis would you justify calling organising life around them the least bad option?

plantcomplex · 30/01/2026 18:11

Melarus · 30/01/2026 18:07

It seems to me that we can't possibly make everybody happy, given the current state of affairs, so throwing the doors open to everyone would be the least bad option. I know many here disagree. But at least now you've heard a different view.

Show quote history

Yeh thank goodness you're here to share your anti-women views with us because otherwise we may never hear such views. 🙄

Melarus · 30/01/2026 18:07

MarieDeGournay · 30/01/2026 17:56

That's unfortunately true, but sometimes you have to stand up to nasty bitter bullies, otherwise they think they can get anything they want, whether or not they are entitled to it, if they are nasty and bitter and furious enough.
It's the 'might is right' approach, isn't it?

Show quote history

It seems to me that we can't possibly make everybody happy, given the current state of affairs, so throwing the doors open to everyone would be the least bad option. I know many here disagree. But at least now you've heard a different view.

ConstanzeMozart · 30/01/2026 18:04

MarieDeGournay · 30/01/2026 17:56

That's unfortunately true, but sometimes you have to stand up to nasty bitter bullies, otherwise they think they can get anything they want, whether or not they are entitled to it, if they are nasty and bitter and furious enough.
It's the 'might is right' approach, isn't it?

Show quote history

Or the 'let's just capitulate' approach.
Which I'm not keen on. And which disadvantages many women.

MarieDeGournay · 30/01/2026 17:56

Melarus · 30/01/2026 17:44

Surely 'the simplest solution' in any cases like this is to stick to the obvious, established configuration of men's, women's and mixed sex, and use the Supreme Court's definition of these terms. That provides for 100% of users

Sure, in theory. But, as we've seen, in practice it has stirred up a huge nasty hornet's nest of bitterness and dispute and fury.

That's unfortunately true, but sometimes you have to stand up to nasty bitter bullies, otherwise they think they can get anything they want, whether or not they are entitled to it, if they are nasty and bitter and furious enough.
It's the 'might is right' approach, isn't it?

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 30/01/2026 17:49

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

Melarus · 30/01/2026 17:44

Surely 'the simplest solution' in any cases like this is to stick to the obvious, established configuration of men's, women's and mixed sex, and use the Supreme Court's definition of these terms. That provides for 100% of users

Sure, in theory. But, as we've seen, in practice it has stirred up a huge nasty hornet's nest of bitterness and dispute and fury.

Greyskybluesky · 30/01/2026 17:37

MarieDeGournay · 30/01/2026 17:24

Surely 'the simplest solution' in any cases like this is to stick to the obvious, established configuration of men's, women's and mixed sex, and use the Supreme Court's definition of these terms. That provides for 100% of users.

Any woman who is not bothered about having a women-only pond can use the women's pond or the mixed sex one, so they're not being disadvantaged in any way by the existence of a women-only one.

Show quote history

Yes, this.
It's the solution we've been suggesting for ages wrt toilets, changing rooms, facilities etc etc.

The pools already exist in this format, there are no conversion costs or disruption involved.

But it's still not being accepted.
Surprise sur-fucking-prise.

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 30/01/2026 17:33

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

ConstanzeMozart · 30/01/2026 17:29

MarieDeGournay · 30/01/2026 17:24

Surely 'the simplest solution' in any cases like this is to stick to the obvious, established configuration of men's, women's and mixed sex, and use the Supreme Court's definition of these terms. That provides for 100% of users.

Any woman who is not bothered about having a women-only pond can use the women's pond or the mixed sex one, so they're not being disadvantaged in any way by the existence of a women-only one.

Show quote history

Exactly this. It seems entirely proportionate to me to provide a pond for each sex and a mixed one.

MarieDeGournay · 30/01/2026 17:24

Melarus · 30/01/2026 16:38

I'm not defending my friend's views but I do think there is a tendency on this board to assume that the overwhelming majority of women want single-sex services (whatever that type of service might be), whereas this is not my experience in real life.

Yes, I swim in the Ladies' pond from time to time (in heatwaves!) and I'm not that bothered about it being single-sex. In the poll I voted that all three ponds should be mixed-sex - it seemed like the simplest solution, and it would be nice to have the choice of ponds to swim in.

Surely 'the simplest solution' in any cases like this is to stick to the obvious, established configuration of men's, women's and mixed sex, and use the Supreme Court's definition of these terms. That provides for 100% of users.

Any woman who is not bothered about having a women-only pond can use the women's pond or the mixed sex one, so they're not being disadvantaged in any way by the existence of a women-only one.

Imdunfer · 30/01/2026 17:19

Melarus · 30/01/2026 17:06

When it comes to consent it doesn't matter if it's a majority. If a 'Ladies' pond allows TIMs in and one woman cannot swim in it (whether for religious/cultural/past-trauma reasons, or for reasons of privacy and dignity), other women who do not have or do not wish to act on those reasons/feelings have consented for her.

I'm not consenting on anyone's behalf. The survey asked what I wanted, not what I thought other women would want.

I think the days of the single-sex pond are over, tbh. The world has moved on.

I think the days of the single-sex pond are over, tbh. The world has moved on.

But it hasn't. There are Muslim and Jewish women and traumatised women and proposal others who cannot swim in a Hampstead pond because it is not single sex.

That's an ongoing situation and given there are 3 ponds, it's not right

Imdunfer · 30/01/2026 17:16

JoanOgden · 30/01/2026 13:28

Clearly the consultation stats are almost entirely valueless, but I have a 70-something female friend who swims in the Ladies' Pond and she and her friends are all fine with allowing TW in and say that it's only a minority of regular users who are unhappy with this.

Of course there are probably women who are unhappy but wouldn't say, so I'm not suggesting that this is scientific either, but I don't think we should assume that the majority of regular users want to exclude TW. (Of course they might change their mind if confronted with one of the more aggressive exhibitionist TW who pop up in some places.)

It doesn't matter how they feel, they cannot make that decision for other women.

Melarus · 30/01/2026 17:16

Theeyeballsinthesky · 30/01/2026 17:12

I think the days of the single-sex pond are over, tbh. The world has moved on.

that will not please TRA, they need there to be a pond only for women so they can be validated by using it. If they all become just boring everyday mixed sex pond, that won't be any fun at all

Yes exactly, I think it would take a lot of the heat and bad feelings out of the picture.

It's unlikely to happen, though, so the argument will continue to rumble on