Kenwood Ladies Pond Authoritarians

I didn't say women with trans identities weren't going into men's single sex spaces. My question was: are their incidents of women with gender identities harassing, dominating and driving men out of their single sex provision?

No.

The issue IS only men in women's spaces.

I'm sure though that men don't like or enjoy having women in their spaces, and I know gay friends have been irritated by women wanting to be seen as gay men, but to put it very bluntly, those women are not sexually threatening or violent.

Yes.

Well done to the woman who wore it. Very brave.

I would have thought that the behaviour of the men who do consider it appropriate to thrust themselves into women's spaces would have been enough to convince most people that they should not be there...

It is sometimes difficult to remember on here where rightly there is a lot of discussion about the men whose behaviour is an embarrassment to men generally... that a large chunk of men are very decent and would be horrified to do anything to upset women, and wouldn't want to be in a women's only area...

we just have to keep pushing back wherever we can, whoever we are back to the common sense of man = man and woman = woman - and then the vast majority of these issues go away.

I'm not justifying it, I'm just saying that there are transmen also defying the FWS ruling by using men's spaces. It's not just transwomen who are flouting it.

And yes they shouldn't as both sexes are entitled to single sex spaces.

Absolutely.

a) men want their own spaces (why else are men's clubs so popular?!)
b) men want to pee or change amongst other men, just as much as women want to be among only women
c) while the risk is almost entirely uni-directional male->female, so there is little risk of attack by a woman on a man in men's spaces; that very fact can also mean that men are vulnerable to accusation and may well not be believed. Therefore there is no desire by men to have women in their spaces in case of allegations.

And it works both ways - decent men who would never dream of imposing themselves into women's spaces have no desire for women to make the male spaces mixed sex either - it would give that same awkwardness...

Men I speak to on the subject are horrified at the thought.

Men are entitled to privacy, and dignity, too.

TBF to TPA on MN I would not assume a child that is sometimes a niece and sometimes a daughter is fictional. It's pretty common to fudge exact details of ages, relationships, locations etc to reduce likelihood of being identified.

but this wasn’t a trans convention was it? It was a female only space that has been invaded by entitled men. I love the fact you equate what that woman was wearing to a death threat. And yes, I did deliberately write that to see your response.

the Kenwood Ladies Pond debacle is the perfect example of trans identifeid men wanting into womens spaces, changing rooms & private spaces, irregardless of the cost to women.

there is a MIXED SEX pond for everyone, there is a MENS pond that would welcome trans identified men, but no they INSIST on accessing the space that is for women too.

They want it all and it's male entitlement gone mad.

And it is only men. No women with gender identities are going to be harassing, dominating and driving men out of the men's single sex provision, a) because the men won't have it, and won't be expected to, b) they wouldn't dare, and c) however women might personally identify they don't behave like this to other people.

This I disagree with. I suspect a lot of transmen regularly use mens single sex spaces and do so without issue because a) men don't feel threatened by women in their spaces and b)transmen tend to pass better than transwomen.

of course it is - anything public will welcome many protected characteristics - men / women / disabled / different races / different faiths / etc.

you can also combine two characteristics if relevant - e.g. disabled women.

however you can't legally label something as only for one and then allow in those which stops it being for the first.

So, you can't have something for those who are disabled only and let in those who are not disabled - similarly you can not have something for women only and let in men.

If you want women and men then it must be labelled as for both and you can't exclude any who are women or men - i.e. straight men as well as 'trans women' would be allowed... and it would no longer be for just women...

of course, all of this is perfectly well known by those in charge at the ponds, and of course those posting on here, where it has been analysed to death many times... however, there are those who still think that somehow they can confuse the discussion by pretending that this is somehow a gotcha which allows men into women's spaces...

if a space is women only - letting in 'trans women' means letting in men

• it is no longer a women's only space - it is now mixed sex
• you can't then stop all men from joining in - because you are allowing it to be mixed sex - so even non-trans men will be allowed in.

the ponds have a pond for men / a pond for mixed sex (which includes men) and a pond for women (which does not include men) - any men in that pond are there illegally.

Yeah, I was just thinking the same.

One is a statement of biological fact.
The other is a threat of violence - funny how that was immediately reached for as an equivalent, without a pause for consideration.

Hmmm.

'Gender critical' views have been Grainger tested and found worth of respect in a democratic society.

'Genderist' views have not.

There's a mixed pond for that.

You can't call it the women's pond and let men in. Change names and they're good to go. But they won't, as then it will be even more blindingly obvious that they won't cater to actual women.

Er that's a threat of violence, the swimming top merely stated the truth.

If you can't see the difference, I feel sorry for you.

It's entirely legal even under the current EHRC code to have a club or gathering which includes two protected characteristics, even if you think that trans and cis women together are "mixed sex." Leave them alone and form your own gender critical swimming club.

If someone went to a a gender critical convention with a Kill A TERF t-shirt on, I'd expect the same reaction.

TPA's Trans Child is fictitious.

Is this the equivalent of spitting coffee on your keyboard because something you've read is soooooo hilarious, then going onto a forum to let people know about the hilarity and the coffee-spitting?

The lack of self awareness here is staggering (and hilarious)
How exactly do you imagine the women on this board view you and your infantile rants?

Haha. Why? Would you feel the same if done one had worn a “kill a TERF” swimsuit in a women inclusive environment? If not, why not?

It's almost like the pervy creeps have ruined it for the genuine men who just desperately wanted to access the women's pond for completely legitimate reasons to do with how sad they are.

What, men perving on women? I agree.