Sex Matters crowd funding to challenge on the Ladies Pond

[IReallyLoveItHere]

I don't know if links are allowed so I'll put it in next post to allow it to be deleted if needed.

Can look at Sex Matters website.

https://sex-matters.org/take-action/crowdfund-to-keep-men-out-of-the-ladies-pond/

Also in The Times this evening: https://www.thetimes.com/article/e38b13a4-2d5f-44a0-aef4-944d8d123aa8?shareToken=47b9171665327bbbea41c45c9f6501bf

Bloody good on Sex Matters, I'm glad my donations to them get put towards stuff like this. There's a unisex pond, the TIMs can go in there.

Donated.

Good on Sex Matters I will be donating. There are some good comments in the Times article. I extracted this bit;

Humpy-Dumpty's dodgy trick ("When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean.") was his way of exerting power - "Which is to be master", as Humpty put it. Rather unpleasant to see that sort of thing in Hampstead.

Donated. God, I’m so sick of this stupid nonsense.

Donated. If the City Corporation win then there are three mixed sex ponds - oh, except the men don’t let the women in theirs, do they, even if they are wearing wigs and fake beards.

i am so pleased they are doing this and have donated

Donated. Men who are under the illusion they are women are welcome to pretend whatever they like elsewhere.

Donated and shared x

£10 in the pot. Very useful test case.

Donated.

It's so irritating that women still have to crowd fund for shit like this when we already know that the outcome is a foregone conclusion because they are in direct contravention of the Supreme Court judgment.

Why can't they just obey the law?

Ridiculous doubling down by the City and the volunteer entity. “Be kind,” as an insidious propaganda program, has a lot to answer for.

Donated.

I've just been reading about this on their website

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/women-only-doesnt-mean-single-sex-says-corporation-of-london/

"It [CoL] says that we [SM] have confused the definition of sex in the Equality Act with the use of the terms “women” and “men” on the Corporation’s notices and in its policies. It says these do not refer to the ordinary meaning of women and men in biology and law but “must be read in light of the access arrangements in place at the Ladies’ Pond, pursuant to which both trans women and biological women have been permitted to access the Ladies’ Pond and have done so now for many years”.

It claims that “the Ladies’ Pond is not a single sex facility… precisely because trans women are permitted to access the swimming facilities”.

It argues that it therefore does not need to rely on the single-sex and separate-sex exceptions in the Equality Act in order to provide a lawful single-sex service because when it says “men” and “women” it is not referring to sex at all."

Is this not a totally backwards argument? That because men (TW) use the Ladies' Pond, it's not a single sex facility?

Also: their argument that when it says “men” and “women” it is not referring to sex at all 🙄
So their argument is that CoL have their own definition of women and men!

I don't know how the governance of organisations like this works but it would be great if the people deliberately breaking the law like this could be found personally liable and made to pay damages from their own pockets. I think a lot of these people are just ignoring the law because they think/know that if they are taken to court it'll be the organisation they work for or even the taxpayer (in the case of public bodies) which has to foot the bill. Some personal liability is needed.

Or alternatively it would be great if the judge could give any organisation found to be in the wrong a choice between a massive fine or firing any individuals involved in the decision to flout the law.

I don't think that can be done, but it sure would focus a few minds.

If CoL claims it isn't using SSE for the women's pond then what reason do they have for keeping women out of the men's pond

Do you put your real name and address on those donations? I know the gift aid needs it… but do you choose to skip the gift aid?

Donated. This is a good test case for can anyone make 'women' mean anything they want. Looking at you, Women's Institute.

The thing is though, it isn't a test case for that. The Supreme Court has already answered that question definitively.

This is a test case for what happens when organisations just ignore the Supreme Court judgment because they don't agree with it.

They can't have it both ways. Either they're legally discriminating on the protected characteristic of sex, in which case trans-identifying men have to be excluded, or they're not, in which case non-trans men can't be excluded.

In effect they are claiming that the EA does not apply to them.

Tried to donate but not sure it went through so I'll give it 24 hours and try again.

Thanks, donated

Thanks 🧑‍🌾

Didn’t CoL run a consultation on whether men should be excluded from the women’s pond, and then binned all the responses that said they should? Edward Lord involved. Can’t remember the exact details or how it was discovered that the consultation was undermined in this way.

Their argument is so fantastically stupid.

it boils down to, ' well we are already breaking the law so should be allowed to carry on doing so.'