Sex Matters - Hampstead Heath Ponds -

Do 38,000 people really use those ponds?

That seems like an extraordinary number of people.

The published data is the ponds gets used about 700,000 times a year.

If a person goes once a week, that only equates to about 13500 users.

Swimming more often than that brings it down even lower.

It's bollocks, isn't it.

I would like to thank the person upthread either here or in another who has lef to my sleepless night remembering events from nearly sixty years ago. The suggested that people swim at beaches with no problem. There was the leering old man at Clacton, and the young one who adjusted his position on the beach at Dover when I moved my bag to block his view and then stood between the sea and my stuff when I did swim, and the middle aged man who followed me along the prom and then stared at me. When I left without swimming and went back later he was still at it. After that, unless I could find a friend on the beach I didn't swim. In the middle of people on the prom they did it. Nobody noticed them owning the beach by just looking.
So beaches aren't places that are fine. Women self exclude there. You just don't know how much. Nor do I, of course.
That survey is unbelievable.

If it is ok to include some men in a space with women then it is mixed sex and must admit all men. Apart from it being impossible to be a single sex space if a single person of the opposite sex enters it, it is also not possible to meet the SSE under the equality act if it is accepted that it is ok for any of the opposite sex to enter. So a “women and certain men” space is unlawful discrimination.

You could say yes, I'm a local resident and supply the postcode of a nearby chicken shop.

I know this because reasons.

How do you define ‘trans inclusive’ though? Most people have no problem with men who identify as women being included in men’s spaces (as the law requires).

I guess in the last six years the men have learned a trick or two. Courtesy of some TWs who have demonstrated just to what lengths and how relentless they’re prepared to be in seeking their desired outcomes.

I’m getting a 404 from that link @Ereshkigalangcleg - is there another link?

• 86% felt the ponds should remain trans inclusive spaces

WTAF? Out of 38,000 responses? It must have been 38,000 TWs sending in their responses. Absolutely no way that 38,000 ordinary women said yes of course let the men in.

The problem at the heart of transgenderism is how fanatical and enraged men are when they’re told ‘no’ and their single minded intense relentlessness in pursuit of domination and the power to make women STFU.

As history as demonstrated, it’s hard to compete with fanaticism.

Are ManFridays still a thing? I've been feeling particularly masculine recently and would like to be affirmed by attending the men's pond... But because I'm scared of transphobic backlash, I'd really like some other likeminded TiFs to accompany me. How would one go about arranging this 🤔🙃

A thread from when the survey was released and disseminated for completion which analyses it https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/3317922-City-of-London-Corporation-consultation-is-out-this-covers-Hampstead-Ponds?utmcampaign=thread&utmmedium=appshare

And this shows how much was spin https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3380245-The-City-of-London-consultation-didn-t-go-quite-as-they-hoped?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

The previous “survey” https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3400894-city-of-london-corporation-gender-survey-results?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

Exactly, thank you. I thought i remembered something like that had happened but I wasn't certain.

All documented in threads from the time, and on Twitter and FB.

As we know, last time Edward Lord said they had got rid of many of the responses they didn’t want for arbitrary reasons.

And if you believe that, you'll believe anything. Even if a load of TRAs swamped the consultation with multiple identities (which I'm sure they did) you wouldn't have those results without "massaging the figures" a bit. I'm not buying it.

You fundamentally misunderstand what the SSEs are, as has been pointed out to you on countless threads now. They are based on a person’s biological sex. It is legally incompatible with using them to deliberately let a single man in. Whether it is legally possible to avoid them by setting up a “women and “trans women” space, is another matter.

Exactly. It hasn’t been fully tested in court in a precedent setting case, but it’s logically the sound argument. There is no legal basis for allowing men into a women only space.

someone could prove there is a demand for women only sex based they would probably just say ask the local council to provide it

It's not a private company it's run by the City of London, basically a local council with a weird history. It's not a private member club.

Also the fact so many voted against transgender access shows there is a demand for women's only single sex.

I agree.

And that is what the judge is alluding to. The City Corporation haven't yet set their policy. If they do set one which causes someone to suffer a detriment under the Equality Act, that person would need to bring a case against them.

Traditionally, applications for judicial review have not gone all that well for GC claimants. What has gone well is discrimination cases based on actual detriments experienced by individuals.

Well yes, that’s the TRA argument you’re making. It’s not actually been tested in court. This decision, as Sex Matters said, just kicks the can down the road. Whether “women and “trans women” (ie a group of men under the Equality Act) is a legal grouping and doesn’t a) indirectly discriminate against women or b) doesn’t discriminate against other men is the issue, and the SSEs are only based on sex as per the Supreme Court, not sex and one gender identity.

A fair chunk of them are on Reddit whimpering about "transandrophobia" from TIMs & enbies & how marginalised they are within the "trans community". They're so close to getting it but can't let themselves understand that it's just the same old sexism & misogyny even when directed towards bearded ladies.

I'm thinking of issuing a questionnaire to our local lads In black Northface clothing & balaclavas to see how they feel about the law on Scheduled Drugs. Yknow, seeing as the law is apparently optional via a narrow survey.