Sex Matters - Hampstead Heath Ponds -

Did you perhaps mean to say 'most of whom claim to live in the area and have swum there?' No steps were taken to verify identity of those completing the survey, which is amazingly common when someone wants to ensure their vote goes a certain way.

This exactly, nobody should be relying on ‘data’ without any way of knowing if even the most basic details given are true, or any check around how many submissions any individual person made

If they had an issue, they wouldn’t swim there.

I think they might need to change the constitution, too. Iirc it does specify mens' and ladies' swimming.

Yes, it's just kicked it all down the road really, because they have to make a difficult (for them) choice at some point: they have to uphold the law ie make the Men's and Ladies' Ponds single-sex, or they have to change the signage and any marketing and advertising about the Ponds to make clear that all three Ponds are mixed-sex.

I await their decision with interest.

I’m not too knowledgeable about this, but…

What would happen if a woman went in the men’s pool, saying she is a trans man? What would she have to other than wear suitable clothing?

(inspired by the poster saying the men have a bigger pool)

Disclaimer - I hate swimming. You will NEVER find me at any of the pools.

Give over with that. There were no checks in place to verify whether respondents were answering truthfully.

It’s very likely that the link to the survey was circulated on places like Reddit (as it was on MN) and so I’d be very surprised if the numbers of people categorising themselves as local and/or as previous Pond swimmers was in any way accurate.

I have no issue with trans inclusive ponds either.

Transwomen in the men's, transmen in the women's. Fine.

I do have an issue with men in the women's. Transwomen are men.

Alternatively a man refused entry to the women’s pond could bring a case on the grounds that other men have been granted access.

For example, if a woman wanted to swim in the Men's Pond with it's better facilities (it is larger and has a diving board) then she is not allowed to do so unless she also has the PC of gender reassignment.

So is the next step another Man Friday type action followed by a court case?

The law is the law. We don't hold consultations on other laws and ask ppl whether they think organisations should bother complying with it or not bother if they disagree with it

Exactly @Theeyeballsinthesky

Quite probably. We know thanks to the very deliberate targeting and policing of language at a very early stage by stonewall & TRA, that many ppl think a trans woman is a woman who wants to identify as a man

it's all bloody irrelevant though. The law is the law. We don't hold consultations on other laws and ask ppl whether they think organisations should bother complying with it or not bother if they disagree with it

See my above post for how reliable that data is.

Your view is in the minority.

90% of 38,000 consulted (34,200), most of whom are in the area and have swam there, have no issue with trans-inclusive ponds.

This is the first reason why permission was refused, and it's what I predicted earlier in the thread. Really odd that Sex Matters went ahead with this.

Yes, bizarre. Perhaps people thought that trans women were actually women and female. It seems to be a common misconception.

To suggest they don't like the idea of 'mixed sex', but are, at the same time, in favour of 'mixed sex' when it comes to 'women only' is really quite a disconnect. I don't believe it.

I did think the court action was premature. The fight continues.

No, not at all. They were (to my mind anyway) using the consultation as a fig leaf to hide behind. But now that has been completed they will have to make a decision whether to keep the current arrangements or change them.

This was also referred to in the judgment:

[66] ...the Corporation wishes to consider legal advice about the effects of FWS
in the light of the outcome of the consultation. In my view this is an appropriate course given the complex and highly sensitive issues at stake.

And I'm calling bullshit on the claims that the 'regular swimmers' and 'local residents' were the ones most supportive of excluding women who want the law upheld.

I'm not saying there wasn't a majority - I don't know, and it is fecking Luxury Belief Central, after all - but I filled in that consultation and I was asked if I was a regular swimmer there and a local resident. My answers were no and no, but I could see no checking at all would be done to verify if I were.

PP are right, the time for a Judicial Review is now. And by someone who uses the ponds.
City of London is a tiny LA which is useless in many respects, so expect they'll fight this forever though.

They always could continue swimming.
In the men's or in the mixed.
But no - they want the women's as well. Grabby and selfish.

CoL's consultation doesn't override the law, does it?

'Of six options considered for the Kenwood Ladies, Highgate Men’s and Hampstead Mixed Ponds, the most popular, with support from 86% of respondents, was retaining the existing access arrangements, in which trans men and women are able to use the pond of their choice.

The same percentage opposed introducing strict single sex access, 90% of people rejected requiring trans swimmers to use separate changing rooms or have separate swimming sessions, while 66% opposed making all ponds mixed sex.'

The people responding are very confused as to what mixed sex is.

It's on the City of London website:

https://news.cityoflondon.gov.uk/consultation-results-published-on-hampstead-heath-bathing-ponds

www.bbc.com/news/articles/c70lyrpekr2o

"A consultation run by the City of London Corporation and published on Thursday found that nearly 90% of respondents backed trans-inclusive access to the ponds.

More than 38,000 people took part in the consultation over a period of two months.
Of those, 84% of respondents to the consultation had swum at the bathing ponds and 74% lived in London, the City of London said."

Results are in. The courts have thrown out Maya's case. Trans women can continue swimming. Out of 38,000 respondents in the consultation there is a super-super majority supporting trans women, most of whom live in the area and have swum there.

Trans Reddit claims to have the results of the consultation. Is that in the judgment?