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

RCC deciding to set up a trans-exclusionary centre for gender critical women (Rowling has).

Careful, your ideology is showing.....

An RCC that is single-sex is not by definition 'for gender critical women'.

I've tried google, thanks.

It just comes up with the usual circular arguments and feelings in people's heads. Nothing real at all.

And gender reassignment* is a protected characteristic in that people can't be discriminated against because of it - "gender identity" isn't protected at all. You can't legally protect something that has no definition in law.

*Gender reassignment is very specific - and even then the Act specified that people with GRCs didn't have carte blanche to barge in anywhere and everywhere. The safety, dignity and privacy of sex was paramount, and where this would be compromised, it was legal to make exceptions excluding men from women's spaces, and women from men's.

And I certainly don't equate "being gender critical with woman" - I know plenty of men who are gender critical, too. I equate being gender critical with being truthful about the effects of biology ie men are male, women are female , and nobody can change sex.

Just don't conflate gender with sex. Stick with sex as the distinguishing characteristic - it can be observed and validated, unlike "gender'.

Plus - it isn't a "trans-exclusionary centre" as far as I am aware. Trans-identifying women (ie "transmen") will be accepted because they are female.

DadJoke · Today 13:49

I know your views reflect you protected gender critical beliefs, but the law, with exceptions, treats trans women as women for the purposes of access to single-sex spaces, and trans men as men.

The law supports organisations which want to exclude transw, for the lawful purpose of preserving the privacy and dignity of women, if they wish to do so.

Emotionalsupportviper · Today 14:47

And I certainly don't equate "being gender critical with woman" - I know plenty of men who are gender critical, too.

Yes, that describes me (a man).

I keep hearing Mr Bumble in Oliver Twist whenever I read a particular poster. "If that is what the law supposes, the law is an ass" Probably misquoting a bit.

DadJoke
Are you talking about transwomen with or without a GRC?

Hampstead women's pond isn't short of pick mes.

You are arguing with yourself again. You and I agree about what the law says, but have different aspirations as to its interpretation.

Your characterisation of the BRCC case as a 'clever framing' and a 'wedge' is sickening. Because the law has been turned into a dog's breakfast, a traumatised woman has been forced to call on the protection of sex discrimination legislation in the hope of getting help in a women-only setting. No wedge involved, because the service would be as well as, not instead of the trans-inclusive service.

I'm looking forward to seeing Counsel explain why it is so important to make sure that a rape victim be refused help unless she lets a man get involved in the process, and why it is only women who are refused a specialised service.

And don't forget the man in the picture - a TW who wants to be in the room while she shares her rape trauma even though he knows she doesn't want him there. WTAF is wrong with him?

And WTAF is wrong with you?

Well said.

It is really a shame that given what must now be the hundreds of threads on FWR on how the single sex exemptions (SSE) work are still being discussed.

The law allows for single sex (ie biological fact) provision where it is proportionate.

So please can we stop talking about the law but about why some institutions and services think that single sex provision is NOT proportionate.

ie why does the committee think that in terms of women's swimming it isn't proportionate for it to provide single sex swimming (particularly in this case when there are other ponds). Why does the committee think biological women are less important than trans women (with or without a GRC?).

Why does the NHS think that single sex provision for women in not important? It is a huge organisation but has decided than trans women's rights are more important than biological women's rights.

Let alone toilet provision whether public, at work or in schools.

The law is there but it isn't being used.

We need to be discussing the capture of the decision makers.

Or, as has also been discussed, the fact that so many institutions, including the civil service, BBC etc., all seem to have somehow been infiltrated by those who think the rights of biological females are not as important as TW's.

Being onf FWR can feel a bit like Ground Hog Day.

Be nice to have an answer to that question but likely it’d be along the lines of raped women not being allowed to weaponise their trauma. ‘… attempt to ‘force trans exclusion’ ffs. Talk about clever framing when BRRC already has a trans group. Can I add this jewel of an item to the ‘hating men’ thread?

Yes, even the worked examples in the Act are ignored. I think women must have become invisible somehow.

Invisible @theilltemperedclavecinist , and our tiny, high-pitched voices can be heard only by (grumpy old) bats . . . .

It is becoming apparent that legislation is (eventually) going to have to restore and enforce women's equality, because men given the option will just take everything without conscience and stupid women will help them for head pats and good girl cookies.

LA (tax payer) funding absolutely should be conditional on female only facilities being provided, by law, alongside whatever other facilities the LA feels inspired to provide, and I would hope there are accessible options for everyone.

Which is the humane and GC position incidentally. Equal and accessible facilities for all. Instead of the TQ+ political party line of 'ha, we get EVERYTHING and you GET NOTHING, sucks to be you!' grotty toddler style thinking.

Instead of the TQ+ political party line of 'ha, we get EVERYTHING and you GET NOTHING, sucks to be you!' grotty toddler style thinking.

Perfectly put! It's childish, entitled and unfair.

Moreover it's a punishment for denying their ideology.

Thank you for explaining those points so clearly in contraction of DadJoke’s assertions.

I'm looking forward to seeing Counsel explain why it is so important to make sure that a rape victim be refused help unless she lets a man get involved in the process, and why it is only women who are refused a specialised service.

And don't forget the man in the picture - a TW who wants to be in the room while she shares her rape trauma even though he knows she doesn't want him there. WTAF is wrong with him?

Very well said.

There's a hell of a lot wrong with him. And everyone who thinks the main purpose of rape support for women is to provide supply and experiences for men.

Exactly. It's a women only facility. That excludes males, whatever identity they claim.

In order to have a rational discussion with someone, you have to have a common language.

Redefining words to suit your narrative is the bully's tactic to win at all costs.

theilltemperedclavecinist · Yesterday 16:51

And don't forget the man in the picture - a TW who wants to be in the room while she shares her rape trauma even though he knows she doesn't want him there. WTAF is wrong with him?

I assume that it's because them is a twisted, sadistic bully.

Gender critical people conflate all women with gender critical women. Of course there are gender critical men. Most gender critical people are men.

Why are you here on the feminist board on Mumsnet, Dadjoke?