Sex Matters Hampstead Heath Ponds - Thread 2

Well done thank you! Coming up

Thank you @rebax for the continuation thread.

I was about to post a comment from the Judge J lived gender is not a pc

DS is arguing TP should use the pool on the basis of their gender not GRC status or even GReassignment, DS knows that it’s self id by the back door I.e. only allowing those with a GRC to use the LP is completely ridiculous.

DS is arguing for option 3 - all 3 ponds become mixed sex whilst stating option 3 is not what anyone wants. Completely contradictory.

Looking forward to using that diving board in the men's pond.

From TT

Second part of afternoon session, 4 Nov.

DS found it. What is characterised as a negative experience is a disagreement with the policy. We have a very small number 288 out of the entire respondents of many thousands. Those are likely to be included in MF's evidence. That's why we say it's not a simple numbers

game. If one looks at the numbers on the ground minimal evidence that would render the policy disproportionate. Finally, there is no basis for the Cs to say we are not in 158 territory. An argument that TP are free to express their gender elsewhere on the Heath. Of course

anyone can walk around on the Heath. I'm going to go on to talk about indirect discrim.
J what about the incoherence argument that the combined classes are dissimilar. Can you say something about that
DS 158 always discriminates against another group, we've got 2 vulnerable

groups according to MLF. That's not correct, most women felt that the presence of TW contribute to the environment of the LP.
J the second point, proportionality considers a less intrusive measure, and must be tailored to the aim, the arrangements are tailored to the

class of pc with GRA, but in fact is much wider than that in practice. Stewards are instructed not to question anyone's assertion of identity. A much wider group of people are being advantaged than envisaged.
DS is this too blunt an instrument is that the question

J one way to look at it, its not proportionate because you need to look at the consequences on the other protected group, women. It doesn't seem confined to the protected group
DS I would disagree, there is no evidence that this policy is being misused, for example large groups

of cis men
J you don't need to put it in alarmist terms, as I understand things no one is questioning anyone about the lived gender
DS there is no evidence that there is a group of people that are not trans who are benefitting from this policy, if there was evidence that there

were non-trans individuals benefitting from this policy, there is no evidence.
J I'll consider that, but understand I have taken from the evidence that the rule is not being enforced
DS even if there is a problem with some without the pc of the GRA, if one person went in,

that's not disproportionate, if there were large groups of people breaking the rule
J I thought you would say that TC's case is specifically about the rules, in other words the logic in that seems to be that I should assess the rule no matter what is happening on the ground

In the nicest possible way I hope you don’t have to.

However, the man Fridays have made a clear point and if the CoL win then everyday becomes man Friday day and you get to use the diving board to your hearts content,

From TT

DS I would respectfully adopt that but my primary submission is that proportionality is assess in the real world, overwhelmingly the evidence suggests that it is just fine in the way that it seems to work.
J if TC wanted argue this was a legal ruse, it would have to fought out

in the County Court, but you say I should consider the rule as written
DS the evidence says that it does work.
J thank, points that I will have to think about.
DS to say that merely being the presence of a TW
J we are focused on the changing room

DS the ponds have been TI for more than a decade, no woman can reasonably expect this to be a same sex space. It is a wholly unreasonable expectation, give that this is a cause celebre. Particular disadvantage must be experienced by the entire class, and the individual

and that is the users of the ponds
J or those who might want to use the ponds
DS there is no evidence that women using ponds expect it to be segregated by bio sex. The overwhelming majority of women favour current arrangements and see them as advantageous. 3 types of evidence

1st is C's WS, we say they are insufficient, anecdotes from a handful of people set against the consultation process. Let me make 2 points, the results of the survey of MP members, 3.8% said privacy dignity compromised by the presence of a TM. It is an issue for men.

That's not correct, most women felt that the presence of TW contribute to the environment of the LP.

And what is a TW?

From TT

The 2nd document is Mr W's statement, to illustrate why we can't make any assumptions here, a report by EHRC in 2020 on attitudes to TP, men would feel uncomfortable with TM using toilets and facilities. This is entirely contrary to the C's evidence that women are more

disadvantaged, more men in this survey are uncomfortable than women.
TC Can I say that we were not expecting this evidence, and if it is admitted we were want to submit rebuttal evidence.
DS now in relation to Prof Phoenix report, in flagrant breach of requirements for early

disclosure and early notice. The reason we say it's not required to resolve any of the issues, at para 29 of her report, she accepts that there is no body of research that directly addresses the issue of are women more sensitive than men, and more distressed than men in those

circumstances.
J the word directly is very important there
DS she goes into a number of areas that are not her area of expertise, including how many showers, and talks about the amenity value whilst not acknowledging they are trans inclusive.
J are you saying that I should

As I said on the other thread, anything goes, as long as you’re less honest about it than Man Friday were, and claim it’s sincere.

DS the ponds have been TI for more than a decade, no woman can reasonably expect this to be a same sex space.

So if I go to the pond and see a sign saying 'women only' it's up to me to understand the subtext that it is actually mixed sex?

From TT

reject the entire report, but there are key points here to me, the comparative disadvantage and the experience of women
DS we see this as a piece of advocacy, yes I've got that
J do you have any thing to say about fairness and timing
DS by submitting this a month before the

hearing we have had time to do nothing and it is not necessary to resolve the issues.
J thank you
DS on the disadvantage, we rely on the consultation,
J you say the have not proved their case on disadvantage
DS if there was an individual they would have to show that they

been distressed and were a user of the LP. On justification, the legitimate aims, meeting the needs of trans user, respecting Art 8 rights
J this may not make a difference, but you are seeking to justify the disadvantage experienced by bio women, what is the impact on women

Apparently so! It’s a single sex space not a mixed sex space but of course you shouldn’t expect it to be a single sex space, don’t be silly!

This is entirely contrary to the C's evidence that women are more disadvantaged, more men in this survey are uncomfortable than women.

Got to look after the menz.

From TT

DS its a particular disadvantage that needs to be justified, I accept that
J not sure it makes a difference on the analysis
DS I don't propose to address you on relief
J we will have to come back for that
DS the reality is that it was premature for the C to pursue this

you are seeking to justify the disadvantage experienced by bio women

Yup. He's got it.

Thanks for updates and second thread.
still aghast at this whole situation

Genderists who are male have two ponds. They really don’t need a third.

The rest of this discussion is then surely just to establish

1. q. is the patriarchy alive and well?
   a. Yes, obviously

2. then given the above is universally acknowledged fact, the need for a women’s pond that is away from men is clearly established. Nobody needs to be interested in how men on the outside of that ladies pond area self-describe, because the material point is that they are still men, and men may not come in. Men already have two ponds!

From TT

and plow on with the review,
J is this all to do with costs, why are you focused on this, do you want me to look at this decision
DS we want an answer to that, yes costs are of interests, looking at the judgment of Lieven, we are not sure on whether that has been resolved

DS unless ML has questions, I have spoken for too long.
Discussion about timing; TL has until 4:10, TC needs 45 minutes in reply.
HS rises to speak for TL.
HS SS said that the evidence on disadvantage all points in one direction,

20 mins of Translucent coming up

Its the usual thing.

Can 'women' mean 'single sex for women AND any men who want to be in there with them' despite the SCJ?

And if there's a loud representation that men and some women really want this, can the women who don't want it, are negatively affected, and would be excluded, be made not to matter?

Judge seems sane

From TT

they face a threshold problem in that they haven't proved that and DS showed evidence that men are more uncomfortable with TM. Referring to the survey, many women accept TI. And the benefit to many women, who won't be questioned on their gender, if they don't meet the

feminine ideal of beauty. A horrible knock effect of the current environment is that we have female rugby players, politicians wives and women out of the public eye. All of these women benefit from a lighter touch policy that doesn't question. A bio woman who didn't have a

conventional appearance, would face that intrusion even with timed sessions.
J what is the legal submission, I'm conscious of time
HS the legal submission is that the Ds are entitled to use the results of the consultation and the experience of management team, but the main

submission, is that there are many women who benefit from this regime. The claim is inviting ML to wade into this debate among women.
J you're submitting that this is the wrong question
HS yes
J is it different for trans people
HS I'm not saying SS spaces are outside the

purview of Sec 19, my main point is that the disadvantage here being relied upon is the subjective perception of one group of women
J yes I've understood that, you're submitting that what women feel about a bio man coming into the changing room can't be generalised is that what

you're saying.
HS the idea that there is a single idea that women have about TW is wrong
J there is no single view that is universally held by women about TW
HS not saying there needs to universality. Now on to HR, TC said that Strasbourg says UK has passed the GRA and

nothing more to say. But it's not a get out of jail free card forever. Second point is that since FWS, the rights of TP to access spaces for their lived gender was subject to a step change after FWS. Third if you're reading the law, that a service provider cannot offer a

service to women that includes TW, that step change is complete. The D does not consider that a bio sex policy would be necessary. The TP right to live in their lived gender is a qualified right. The C's position is that no matter the circumstances a single gender service could

single sex for women AND any men who want to be in there with them

I think the lack of specificity about 'trans' is a huge part of the problem with the CoL argument although I don't know whether the judge will address it in the judgement.

From TT

never be offered.
J I don't think that's their position
HS it is
J the argument is that there are other measures that could be taken, but address it just in case
HS as I understand it they say it cannot be justified under sec 19, it would always be direct discrim. On both limbs