Hampstead Heath Ladies Pond - considering the SC judgement

[QuetzalTerfLus]

Apparently the CoLC is considering its position

https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/25109343.equality-ruling-affect-hampstead-heath-swimming-pond/

@QuetzalTerfLus

thisis worth a listen too. Anyone who thinks this is over is crazy.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-story/id1501716010?i=1000704653263

the only solution isn’t only the current one sorry to say

It’s sad that more cases will have to be bought before courts to simply uphold women’s rights. I’m sure some large payouts will clarify organisations’ understanding of their responsibilities regarding not sexually discriminating against women.

The person in this podcast is delusional. There is zero attempt at a compromise. The interviewer gives a number of ideas including separate provision for those who have had years of transitional surgeries. Even that isn’t seen as a possible compromise. They have zero empathy. Most legal people are not confused at all by the judgement and only people reading the press where they wilfully misquote it are confused. They just twist everything. The position which led to the GRA is considered in the judgement. They spout such utter bollocks with no evidence to back up their claims when there is lots of evidence to disprove what they say.

Obviously it’s not going to go away as we all know when a woman says no to an abuser then that is when they are at their most angry and dangerous.

edited to say: meant to quote @Ineffable23

Indirect discrimination is allowed if there is a legitimate reason, just as you can with direct discrimination. A club for welders that was about them being welders is fine, even though not many women would be eligible. But a swimming club for welders in situations that women might want to swim and without any evidence welders need separate swimming provision would not be okay.

@MarieDeGournay has kindly checked the historic founding of these ponds and the Ladies Pond was established in 1926!! They can hardly just rename it without great difficulty and many challenges

But is a Lady a woman? We all think so I’m sure, but then we’ve always known who / what a woman is.

Perhaps we will need the greatest minds in the land to investigate this.

Oxford dictionary
1, A polite or formal way of referring to a woman
2, A woman of good social position

I think that's fairly clear, I doubt anyone could argue a transwoman could possibly be a Lady. (Laddie maybe but not a Lady)

You’re correct of course. It all seems quite sensible. Common sense. Facts. But.. Uhm.. 👀

It's just crazy a crazy world. It's just over a week since we got the word woman back!

The most committed were always going to challenge the ruling......and it has always been clear that the job is not yet done. There will be an ongoing need to take organisations to court over their failure to implement the ruling. Eventually, they'll get the message.

The supreme court judges said that anything which could be commonly understood to be representaive or symbolic of women - would be protected by the ruling. This incudes an image, for example, of a person in a skirt on a toilet door. I'm pretty sure the word 'Lady' is also covered.

Desperate times for those struggling to come to terms with the fact that the ruling is clear and the game is over.

My understanding is that ‘ordinary’ use of the word is what matters. Even the symbol 🚺 would be sufficient to indicate that the facility is intended as single sex for females.

They could try but it would collapse within seconds of being challenged in court.

I remember reading here years ago that the only way this nonsense would start to get cleared up would be when it started effecting men. I remember it being written and how sad and deflated I felt because I knew it was true. So in this case the men will be up in arms if they lose their pond and if they keep men’s but not women’s it can be legally challenged on discrimination grounds. There will be other instances like this that will crop up and more money, time and effort will be spent but ultimately we will push back every one.

If they are providing a service to people who identify as women (🙄) wouldn’t the provider have to rely on an exemption/exception or risk a discrimination lawsuit. What’s the rationale for allowing only men with a trans identity? Especially when that identity does not require anything other than claiming to be trans? And if they also permit non-binary males then that undermines the whole “identifies as female”.

@UrsulasHerbBag affecting men or costing organisations money in lost court action.

There is already a mixed pond... for the poor mixed up men in bikinis.

You can have an association limited to specific characteristics as long as it does not infringe on protected characteristics so yes a welders club could be formed but not a male welders club. You could start a club for feminine presenting people (that excludes me by the way and a lot of other women) because it would be open to both sexes as long as they present in a feminine manner. However that isn't an option for the ladies pond as it's a service provided by CoLC so is limited by the public office responsibilities (forget correct wording). They can not just relabel it gender based.

You can have a male voice or female voice choir - they’re groups for a specific purpose defined by a largely sex linked characteristic. I’m not sure they could reasonably expect to exclude someone of the opposite sex whose voice genuinely matched the appropriate range and timbre (I used to know a true ‘male soprano’ - rather more power than the elderly ladies in the church choir but not a counter tenor).

It’s possible to have therapy groups only open say to men who have undergone gender reassignment or women who have undergone gender reassignment and I’m sure it could be argued proportional say for the male group to exclude other males who haven’t undergone gender reassignment and females. It could be proportional for the female group to exclude females who haven’t undergone gender reassignment and males. This is because gender reassignment is a protected characteristic as is sex. Gender reassignment will affect each sex differently and although there will be common experiences, there will be those unique to each sex.

The judgement really does protect everyone including trans people. Society can adapt to include them as far as possible in the gender identity they feel comfortable with but we cannot pretend males are female in spaces where that matters. Stonewall should have been campaigning for better acceptance of gender non conforming people without trying to pretend sex is a spectrum and all the other crazy ‘flat earth equivalent things they claim’.

Define "gender reassignment"
such that you could decide who to exclude.

Yes, because afaik the term doesn’t require the person to have ‘undergone’ anything specific.

I don't do open water swimming, would never go to any of the three ponds there.

However, having met a few women who do, and how important it is to them, this is high up the list of places other than medical spaces and changing rooms where I think biological women should be insisted upon, 100%. Also the same with the men's area, which has a long tradition of being a safe space for gay men and should be for biological men only.

Those whose sex and gender identity differ can use the mixed pond.

This was a hypothetical situation to point out that in practice people could choose to have a support group for those males who have undergone or who are intending to undergo gender reassignment. It’s a protected characteristic separate to sex. There could hypothetically be a similar group for females.

Regarding the ponds, they must be male single sex, female single sex, and a mixed sex pond. Or they can choose to have all three mixed. Anything else would be sex discrimination.

"If it's single sex - then the fact a single sex provision was made at all was for a proportionate reason or it would have been mixed sex.
In which case no male is entitled to use it, and if exceptions are made then it's a mixed sex space all men can use."

Thank you Raven, that's so well put that I've saved your post for explaining purposes!

I listened to the first half, the interview with Helen Belcher of TransActual. Not good for my blood pressure but it's all the arguments we've heard many times before one after another and all in the same place. And some alternative facts too. Trans people weren't allowed to give evidence to the Supreme Court. There is no evidence that transwomen pose any kind of risk in women's spaces. Isla Bryson was just a one-off exception that only happened because (Belcher is quite sure!) the Scottish Prison service didn't follow its own rules properly. Well, very probably. And women have committed horrific crimes too you know. We mustn't talk about biological sex, how dare a court use such insulting language. I was a bit puzzled to learn that transwomen are more at risk in women's spaces than women are but I might have misheard that bit.

Belcher wonders how the police are going to determine who is a transwoman before deciding whether a male officer can search them. (Perhaps not quite as big a problem as Belcher fears.) If they don't look feminine then how do women prove they are not transwomen? And how are we going to decide who can go in a women's space? Belcher's women friends are really starting to worry about that.

And a lot else. What did give me a chuckle was that it would be nice if the government started talking and listening to trans people. Oh dear, I don't suppose the government has ever has the benefit of listening to them in all the years before!