AIBU to be upset about changes to women-only swimming ponds?

[Bertiebiscuit]

The BBC (blokes broadcasting corporation) trolling women again - since they now let males in it's not a Ladies' pond any more - so there are 3 swimming ponds, a mixed sex one, a mens'pond......... And another mixed one. How greedy and destructive the TRAs are. Women must have nothing.

This kind of horse shit is everywhere now. Look at M&S fitting rooms for example. Someone posted photos on here a while ago, I forget which store it was. One fitting room was labeled "men's". The other was labeled "try on" (or something similar) and could be used by anyone.

I don't know how people can see this misogyny staring them in the face not be furious. It's baffling

So it will take another court case then? The guidelines are clear enough I thought to prevent this sort of discrimination. It is so blatant it is ridiculous. So what's next, or will the current status quo just be accepted and leave it to the menz now...

Rage is an understatement of how I feel about this and I don't even live anywhere near it!

It sounds unlawful. Will there be a judicial review or an appeal or anything?

I doubt it! , on certain sm platforms apparently they are all planning to ignore the guidelines and continue as before! 🤷‍♀️
women’s feelings are apparently wrong and not as relevant as trans peoples and are a sign we are all bigots!

so there are 3 swimming ponds, a mixed sex one, a mens'pond......... And another mixed one.

Does the men’s pond exclude trans identified women?

The 'consultation' mentioned upthread was a total nonsense because the words 'sex' and 'gender' were used as if they mean the same thing.
So aside from the fact that an oddly large percentage of respondents claimed to be T - far larger than presence in the general population - the answers to the questions had to be nonsensical, looked at in the round, because the questions were nonsensical.
Bear in mind that surveys are only as good as the questions asked; statistics can be used to argue anything you want to argue; and that surveys are paid for and consultancy firms are a business.
City of London wanted a certain answer, namely that males should be allowed to use the female pond. City of London paid for the 'consultation'. The consultation was prepared by a business, which is hardly going to spend hours drafting biologically, legally and linguistically accurate questions when it is clear that that would lead to answers their client - and any other potential council/quango/nhs etc client - wouldn't want.

How are you going to stop a man using the man's pond?

This is the sort of time when mass objection could make the owners uncomfortable enough to change things. Those living close need to get a large group of ladies who all turn up and go into the men's one at once - several times if necessary.
Then point out that it's unfair if the men have the choice of three pools, but no ladies only.

I suspect it will go to three mixed, but it could be worth a shot.

Is that a no?

Not sure that is true. To make a point, some women went to the men’s pool and said they identified as men. They were chucked out. I think the police were even called.

Whereas men are indulged to the hilt and allowed free roam into the ostensibly women’s pool. I seem to remember someone saying even a chap sitting at the side of the women’s pool, with his testicles spilling out of his inadequate, bolleaux containing women’s swimsuit, wasn’t chucked out from the women’s pool. Maybe Keir Starmer would have identified these as lady boll&cks. The percentage of women he thinks have a penis must have testicles too.

That's not true.

So...chuck the man's clothes in the pond?
Or drown him?
No one will tell....

Exactly. A consultation doesn’t mean you can ignore the law.

The difference here is that if a biological woman identifying as a man chooses to swim with men, that is her choice, but the biological women wanting to swim without penises nearby are not being given that choice . And for those who say the local women are supportive, you are ignoring those who have up long ago because men were using their private spaces.

Agree. I no longer live near, but I used to swim in the pond in the 90s, and it was so nice being surrounded by women of all ages. All shapes and sizes happily lounging in the sun after a swim. No worrying about lecherous men. I went to an all girls school and the pond made me realise how much I’d missed female only space, and how much more relaxing it is being around just women and girls when you are undressed or feel vulnerable. It was like being a child again, just free and easy.

Yes, Sex Matters are on it:

Initially, the High Court refused to allow the judicial review brought by Sex Matters over the trans-inclusive policy at the Hampstead Heath bathing ponds. Mrs Justice Lieven ruled in January 2026 that the case should not proceed, mainly on procedural grounds, saying the claim was premature and that an individual claimant would be more appropriate.

However, in March 2026, the Court of Appeal overturned that refusal. Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing granted permission for judicial review, meaning the challenge is now allowed to go ahead to a full hearing.

The laying of the the EHRC code of practice yesterday will massively help this case.

Go and swim in the much bigger men's pool. You may as well as men are in your pool 🤷🏻

This is a perfect example of how trans activists are not happy with third spaces or unisex loos or whatever - they want to be in women's spaces.

There's a mixed pond, they should all use that. I'm a woman and I'd happily use that if I was with a mixed group of friends or even with other women who wanted to use it. But me being happy with that is not the point.

The point is that women should have their own space - or essentially all three ponds should be mixed. Not the women and some men solution.

validation is a huge part of it though. No validation from being in the mixed pool. They need to be validated and need to be vocal victims when they’re misgendered, (correctly sexed)

And as we now know, it's not access to the women's spaces these men want. It's access to the women.

And girls.

This is such an important aspect of the thing: it’s not all about sexual predation by men.
Many women absolutely need to be in male-excluding spaces, for various cultural (and also trauma-based psychological) reasons. These needs are legitimate and serious, and essential for many women to participate fully in both leisure and, in extremis, in refuges and the like.
These damn trans activists pooh-pooh all this because certain men demand validation in their gender-swapping fantasy, and only annexing women’s segregated territory will satisfy this.
It proves, if any doubt remains, that these are indeed men, and manifesting the worst of their sex's bad habits, such as belligerent entitlement and a high -handed dismissal of women.

A tale as old as time! , only the label and acceptability has changed due to mass campaigns!

I mean, it’s a terrible decision, but it is legal not to have single-sex spaces. What you can’t do is claim they are single sex and then let the other sex use it, ao long as they pretend they are the right sex.

But, given that there already exists a mixed pond, it is really stupid not to have proper single-sex swimming ponds too.