Hampstead Pond - Brave woman speaks

[WandaWomblesaurus]

https://twitter.com/roseveniceallan/status/1764345843178512414?s=48

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240302074256/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13146349/How-tranquil-oasis-female-swimmers-line-culture-wars-Bitter-row-trans-women-allowed-bathe-historic-single-sex-pond-comes-ferocious-head.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20240302074256/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13146349/How-tranquil-oasis-female-swimmers-line-culture-wars-Bitter-row-trans-women-allowed-bathe-historic-single-sex-pond-comes-ferocious-head.html

Venice Allan

That's exactly what I was thinking. So you get a vote that supports what the current members think. If you don't think it, you've already voted with your feet and left...

Anecdotal, but I have seen at last one remark on Twitter along these lines.

I do agree with PriOn1 that the 'someone will get raped or assaulted' approach was probably not the best one. Apart from anything else, why should 'only' the threat of rape or assault be considered a good-enough reason for a women-only space? Cultural and religious reasons, plus simply wanting a space for women to give parity with the space that men have at the ponds, should be enough.

But I have to applaud her for standing up for women.

What further recourse do women who want a single-sex space have now? City of London? Civil case? (maybe to point out that disparity)?

Also agree. Screaming about the 'What ifs' never gets anywhere.

There is already a valid argument that male-bodied/trans women exclude women with other protected beliefs by law. That is fact.

And whilst I personally would not have an issue with a transwoman in the pool, I do understand women who would, and therefore as someone who is 'Trans rights are human rights' this does seem harmful because there is already a mixed sex space?

To me personally, extremists on both sides of the argument ruin it for everyone.

Refers to a City of London consultation years ago, overseen by Edward Lord, who is a Freemason and Liveryman of at least two City Livery Companies, all male only bodies. Lord is nonbinary and has a current or former partner, Dr Megjohn Barker, also nonbinary. Dr B writes about kink, polyamory etc as an academic and counsellor. Dr B wrote a guide to counselling which advised that Northern women could be forthright, which is gender nonconforming behaviour. Dr B is a natal female from Hull. Go figure.

The first question was about respondent's gender. Those who didn't fill this in or wrote in their objections to the wording had their entire responses binned as 'invalid or incomplete submissions'. It was something on those lines, anyway.

As ordinary men are presumably not allowed in the ladies’ pond, and most transpeople do not have GRCs and are therefore still compared with ordinary men for EA discrimination law -
aren’t ordinary men, who might have preferred the ladies’ pond for any number of reasons, being discriminated against in law?

The meeting was scheduled for two hours, almost all of which was spent on AGM business and voting leaving very little time for the suggested change to the constitution to be discussed.

The point about religious women was put across very clearly, but as the meeting was already running over and given the previous voting pattern it was clear the amendment in favour of biological reality would not get the 2/3 majority required.

Almost every point in favour was also talked over by the chair waffling on about how they had no power over who was allowed into the ponds even though the amendment was to clarify the meaning of the word woman.

So Venice making her statement came at the end of an already acrimonious meeting where the GC side was constantly being talked over and frankly bullied by the chair.

I don’t think there was ever any doubt that the committee were going to do everything they could to ensure those asking for change would not be given a fair hearing.

I don’t have access to Twitter right now, but someone on there was suggesting that the best way forward now would be a wave of women claiming to be men and insisting on using the men’s pool.

I do believe that might be the most rapid way to effect change and prove that equality for men and women does not exist.

I am aware of (and in huge admiration of) the ManFriday campaign, but I don’t think a repeat of that is what is needed. Those women admitted it was a campaign and that they were not men.

I think those using the men’s pond will have to claim that they earnestly believe they are men. That will then mirror the exact situation that is currently ongoing in the women’s pond.

It would take a very brave woman, or group of women to do this, but have little doubt there would be loud cries of outrage from some of the men who value their single sex space. If those women were then ejected, it would prove irrevocably that equality law was being broken.

Calling women who use the pond and want to keep it single sex as 'aggressive interlopers' is exactly the kind of tactic we saw when our women's centres and DV shelters were taken over by handmaidens who included men.

The women's pond is not for women any more so they need to relabel it as mixed sex.

It's not illegal to discriminate in favour of someone with the PC of gender reassignment, only against. So it's different from sex discrimination, which goes both ways.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · Today 11:16

Crikey, that's quite the scandal, isn't it?

An no conflict of interest, oh no...

Well yes that’s it isn’t it. I only want to be naked around a person with a penis if I have explicitly given permission before the nudity was an option. I imagine this is the same for all people, regardless of religion or traumatic experiences. Nobody likes a surprise penis, who it’s attached to and how they feel/identify has no bearing on the situation.

it’s like society tell us unknown men are an unknown threat, but if we are harmed by them it’s our fault. But also if we don’t accept them in situations where they might harm us we’re hurting their feelings, which are somehow given more weight than our hurt feelings/fears/experience.

Megjohn's efforts discussed here. https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3350668-The-British-Association-for-Counselling-and-Psychotherapy-have-come-up-with-Definition-of-woman?reply=80616425

Ponds consultation thread here. Nearly six years ago! How time flies. https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3317922-City-of-London-Corporation-consultation-is-out-this-covers-Hampstead-Ponds?page=1

... and the end result. https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3592053-City-of-London-Consultation-Results-they-cant-get-away-with-this

They didn't go entirely quietly:

https://www.thejc.com/news/strictly-orthodox-women-to-take-action-against-opening-hampstead-heath-ladies-pond-to-transgender-swimmers-jooc0kji

https://www.timesofisrael.com/orthodox-jews-protest-opening-of-women-only-london-pond-to-trans-swimmers/

These articles talk about a judicial review. I wonder if that is still in the works?

And word here on 'Let Women Swim' campaign, which Muslim women were also part of:

https://5pillarsuk.com/2022/09/01/campaign-launched-to-reclaim-women-only-swimming-pond-from-transwomen/

'Khalida Khan of the An-Nisa Society added: “An-Nisa Society from the 80’s fought for the right of women for single-sex facilities and we are appalled that we are now regressing. One of our campaigns was for women-only swimming sessions. Muslim women were not accessing swimming classes, and as we know, lack of exercise leads to poorer health outcomes. We, with the support of our local sports centre started women-only swimming classes, giving access to women to swimming for the first time. The Centre was so supportive that they even used to put bin bags on the large windows for each session!
“Now, not only are we seeing single-sex facilities being erased, those that are left are being opened up to those who self-identify as women. Many women are afraid and appalled at this development.”'

'Under halacha, no one can change their gender, and so trans women would not be considered women.
While Jewish law permits Strictly Orthodox Jewish women to be in a state of undress in front of other women, it is forbidden in front of men.'

This looks like quite a straightforward clash of rights to me.

And the EA has provision for this in its Exceptions.

@PriOn1 someone on there was suggesting that the best way forward now would be a wave of women claiming to be men and insisting on using the men’s pool.
I love this idea.

And wards, toilets and football teams whilst we're at it?!
Agree it would be brave women required though.

It sounds like, as usual, the whole thing was stage managed and stacked to ensure that men got what they wanted and women were fucked over.

This should go to court. And yes, in the meantime, massed invasion of women into the men's pool. That's where all the safe, decent men will be.

Venice on Julia Hartley Brewer today
2.50 in

https://m.youtube.com/live/S_08F8q_qzA?si=5yQw8NVOwE6azCUV

Thank you for answering. No doubt you are right, not that I understand it.

I was thinking that those men (transwomen) allowed to swim in the ladies’ pond who do not have
GRCs, have therefore not changed their ‘legal’ sex for all purposes, therefore they are men. So ordinary men, as a sex class, would be discriminated against if they are not allowed in the ladies’ pond too.

I was just coming on to say that whilst I don’t swim
in the pond many of my friends do as orthodox Jewish women and enjoyed it greatly as one of the few ladies only outdoor ponds . Yes they won’t come any more - dozens of them

I think the language is unhelpfully combative and probably won't gain much support from the other side or the unconvinced. I don't think rape is "inevitable" - a fairer point would be that it is vastly, vastly more likely. But, as someone said above, that is hardly the only reason to oppose male presence.

There is a male pond at Hampstead and a mixed one so the solution seems fairly obvious: the mixed pond is gender neutral. Why is it so urgent for some of these people to be in women’s spaces anyway?
It is clear that much of the time – and this has even been said about prisons – trans women want to be in female environments to validate their sense of identity.
Suzanne Moore Telegraph
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2024/03/05/transgender-men-women-hampstead-ponds-women-safety/
Also available at https://archive.ph/a2DXs