Turns out Hampstead swimming ponds are single SEX after all ...

[PencilsInSpace]

... at least the men's pond is

Well done to the fabulous #ManFriday gents for exposing this rank hypocricy! Splendid work, chaps

It's like a form of body dysmorphia that is condoned and legitimised...in truth I suppose you could argue that women who have plastic surgery and enhance/change their bodies, in some cases may also have a form of body dysmorphia that is encouraged - but they're not classified as a minority group who demand special status.

Anyone with diagnosed body dysmorphia is given therapy to learn to accept their bodies - not told yes, cut off the bits you don't like and become someone else.

What the hell happened? How did it come to this?

Well yes people who have extreme plastic surgery are no different in my eyes but the tone when reported is generally unsympathetic. They are vain, obsessing over themselves too much, etc.

They are often reported on just to mock them whereas in fact I can't see the difference. We should be kind to them as well. But neither group deserve special treatment in my opinion. It's not like a crippling disability, just not liking the way you look.

Those concerns aren't even just about safety, for me. My feelings of simply being uncomfortable and embarrassed around people of the male sex in some situations are just as valid as their feelings. Surely?

Yes. They are. Of course they are and anyone who can't see this is a misogynist or has internalised it.

I believe the majority of people have a shared expectation of what a single-sex space or service is.

If this definition is to be changed then all stakeholders in society should be aware of this and able to consider it and contribute.

This can't be restricted to people from certain age group/ identity / educational experience / user of certain social media sites/ members of political groups etc.

To do so is to disenfranchise others.

Nic Williams (Fairplay4Women)
twitter.com/AskNic/status/1001784404929384448

R0wan - absolutely perfect encapsulation of the shared space issue.

Really good follow-up article in the DM today (and I don't often praise them for their journalism), but I think it's very even-handed and includes the stuff that wasn't said in their initial piece:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5796701/Hampstead-ponds-row-continues-transgender-demands-going-far.html

DH commented on the new article's headline, which he said spelled things out surprisingly clearly and at some length. I said it was probably deliberate because so many people had just skimmed the headline of the last one & then posted comments showing they'd completely missed the point.

"But instead of saying 'hey we don't conform to stereotypes and we defend our right not to conform' they say 'hey I do conform to stereotypes because I'm the opposite sex'."

same with non-binary. They are saying "men = A" and "women = B", I am neither A nor B so I am not a man nor a woman. All the while they fail to see that they could just burst gender stereotypes, by pretending to be "outside" of them, they actually just reinforce them.

That IS a good DM article! It’s well written, covers the concerns and is at pains to stress the ‘women’ angle rather than their usual focus on ‘feminists’

My goodness, well done the DM! This is exactly what’s needed - rational debate in the wider read national press.

at pains to stress the ‘women’ angle rather than their usual focus on ‘feminists’

I noticed the same in The Sun article below. I think this matters as up until now the narrative has been framed as feminists/some feminsts/so called feminists/radical feminists/TERFs vs people who are transgender.

www.thesun.co.uk/news/6368126/labours-womens-officer-david-lewis/

It's a very welcome shift,

I'm so heartened to see such support from the DM comment section!! Fantastic stuff!

Link to Sweary's LBC interview about Hampstead Pool

from thread where she's shared it and commented:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3266050-ManFriday-article-in-the-Daily-Mail

Wrong link I think?

Or not

Yes, it works for me. Its hosted by Ramases who was also interviewed alongside Sweary.

see below the section,
"Speaking on the popular Nick Ferrari radio program, Ramses discussed the possible changes in law and explained to the audience and protestors why the new changes were a positive step for the trans, non-binary and non-gender community.

He argued that these protests signify that it’s ok to hate the trans, non-binary and non-gender community. You can hear the full show here: its then embedded

[sorry typo with his name]

But talking about it makes me a bigot?!

Yep. Because words are actual violence! But rape and sexual assault and voyeurism aren't. Because we're only women so we have to give in to the menz feelz to make them feel validated and happy.

I've heard the 'argument' made by a few TRAs that men intent on harm will find a way around any rules anyway, so single-sex exemptions won't work.

Whilst its true that some will, a great deal of good has come from a wide range of 'rules' brought in to limit the risk of harm eg Children Act, safeguarding, CRB checks etc etc etc

Whilst its true that some will, a great deal of good has come from a wide range of 'rules' brought in to limit the risk of harm eg Children Act, safeguarding, CRB checks etc etc etc

Exactly this, just because some men will try to find a way, doesn't mean that we shouldn't put measures in place to make it more difficult for them.

Putting in new safeguards or 'rules' after someone has found a way around them, is exactly how things have evolved for the better. This is why there are enquiries, developments, reflective practise & new or improved measures.

*Whilst its true that some will, a great deal of good has come from a wide range of 'rules' brought in to limit the risk of harm eg Children Act, safeguarding, CRB checks etc etc etc

Exactly this, just because some men will try to find a way, doesn't mean that we shouldn't put measures in place to make it more difficult for them.*

Exactly - you may as well give that argument about any protective measures, as 'those intent on harm will always find a way,' so what's the point of any laws, safeguarding policies, physical protective measures etc then?! Let's not bother with safeguarding to protect children from paedophiles, those intent on abuse will find a way! Let alone fucking INVITING those intent on harming in because of their subjective 'feelings'.

Its such an illogical argument.

It really is but they just throw anything they think might stick.