Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Sex Matters crowd funding to challenge on the Ladies Pond

155 replies

IReallyLoveItHere · 13/07/2025 23:23

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
PaterPower · 14/07/2025 10:50

So by their newly stated logic, if the pressure group again attempted to access the men’s pond then CoL wouldn’t call the police this time. Because they don’t define ‘men’ by sex either.

Wouldn't that be worth another go? Anyone care to bet against the CoL calling the police again if they did?

moto748e · 14/07/2025 10:56

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 14/07/2025 09:21

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.

Edited

This, in spades. Couldn't agree more.

Greyskybluesky · 14/07/2025 11:00

Tallisker · 14/07/2025 10:41

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.

Yes, this breaks down the problems with that survey:

https://a-question-of-consent.net/2020/04/28/edward-lord-responds-on-single-sex-spaces-and-that-survey/

Skip to the end of the article for a summary of the problems, including:

Comments which disagreed with this interpretation of the Equality Act were not included in the report.

Still over a quarter of respondents disagreed with the proposition that access to single sex services should be based on gender identity. Their responses were not deemed to matter. The Establishment Committee instead discussed how to change their attitudes.

Tallisker · 14/07/2025 11:03

That’s great @GreyskyblueskyI haven’t actually read that before. Very many thanks.

hotlegshoolahan · 14/07/2025 11:04

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 14/07/2025 09:21

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.

Edited

Yes. I know from personal experience that public sector equalities officers are motivated by promoting their personal beliefs rather than complying with the law and protecting their employer, and the public (there are 9 protected characteristics but you could be forgiven for not realising that if you listened to Equality officers on this issue). And further more, they have not even bothered to get to grips with this issue or the law, despite this being a major issue in their supposed area of expertise.

Its a major failure and people do need to start to be held accountable rather than hiding behind the protection of public money ( which they are wasting).

TheAutumnCrow · 14/07/2025 11:04

PaterPower · 14/07/2025 10:50

So by their newly stated logic, if the pressure group again attempted to access the men’s pond then CoL wouldn’t call the police this time. Because they don’t define ‘men’ by sex either.

Wouldn't that be worth another go? Anyone care to bet against the CoL calling the police again if they did?

Yup, time for #ManFriday2.

FlamingoLlama · 14/07/2025 11:09

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!

According to CoL, men are whoever they say they are and can use whichever pond they like but women cannot, ever, use the men's pond even if they are "living as a man" ie have a moustache like Man Friday.

Greyskybluesky · 14/07/2025 11:10

There was recent discussion about this here if people missed it.
The usual suspects turned up to whine about it, obvs.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5362564-hampstead-heath-ladies-pond-faces-legal-action?

SirHectorDoolittle · 14/07/2025 11:12

Donated! I read the article in the Times this morning and found it to be balanced and well reasoned. Also pleased with the vast majority of comments underneath the article which were broadly supportive, both on the topic and the wider principle of rule of law, i.e. you don’t get to make up your own law to suit your personal views. I am hoping this case goes all the way to shine a gigantic arc light on this lunacy. I’m naturally an optimist….

I did use my own name on the donation, I will not be bullied!

SabrinaThwaite · 14/07/2025 11:16

I’ve gardened too.

The13thFairy · 14/07/2025 11:23

Donated gladly.

LittleBitofBread · 14/07/2025 11:26

spannasaurus · 14/07/2025 09:23

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

Exactly.

backslashruby · 14/07/2025 11:26

Donated.

The13thFairy · 14/07/2025 11:26

Greyskybluesky · 14/07/2025 09:20

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!

Sounds like something the fox killer would come up with - it's about his level of idiocy.

LittleBitofBread · 14/07/2025 11:29

Donated. I'm not sure there's anywhere else in the land that needs less to let men into a women's facility: there's a men's and a mixed pond on top of a women's, FFS!
This is purely ideological and a way to try to put women in their place.

TheAutumnCrow · 14/07/2025 11:33

PencilsInSpace · 14/07/2025 10:04

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.

It’s bewildering. The committee - the responsible trustees - is this one, I think?

(Btw @Greyskybluesky, when I’ve been a trustee I’ve been legally advised that I do have in theory personal liability for crap decision making that flies in the face of clear legal advice. You can’t get clearer than the Supreme Court’s ruling!)

The Chairman and Deputy Chairman are KCs.

democracy.cityoflondon.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=250

Lottapianos · 14/07/2025 11:36

Donated. Bloody good for them, and more power to Sex Matters

WithSilverBells · 14/07/2025 11:45

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-essential-trustee-what-you-need-to-know-cc3/the-essential-trustee-what-you-need-to-know-what-you-need-to-do#s10
10.1 Personal liability to the charity
Trustees can be held liable to their charity for any financial loss they cause or help to cause. This applies to any type of charity whatever its legal form.
The law generally protects trustees who have acted honestly and reasonably from personal liability to their charity. The Commission and the courts:

  • can relieve trustees from liability if they have acted honestly and reasonably and have not benefited from their actions
  • rarely enforce liability on an unpaid trustee who has made an honest mistake
  • expect higher standards from trustees who act in a professional capacity or are paid for being trustees

IANAL, but I did look into this once when considering becoming a charity trustee

The essential trustee: what you need to know, what you need to do

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-essential-trustee-what-you-need-to-know-cc3/the-essential-trustee-what-you-need-to-know-what-you-need-to-do#s10

BlueandPinkSwan · 14/07/2025 11:53

Anactor · 14/07/2025 08:41

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.

Read the 'sex pond' bit and thought of the usual hot tub [bleugh] as loved /hated on MN😀

foodymcfoodface · 14/07/2025 11:59

Donated

spannasaurus · 14/07/2025 12:04

If CoL claim they do not rely on SSE for the womens pond then they are either

  1. Directly discriminating against women who have been refused entry to the mens pond (if they don't claim to use SSE for the mens pond) or
  2. Indirectly discriminating against women if they use SSE for the mens pond but not for the womens pond
moto748e · 14/07/2025 12:05

Donated.

IslandsAround · 14/07/2025 12:08

Donated thank you 🙏 for highlighting

Seainasive · 14/07/2025 12:08

I’m nowhere near London but have donated.

WithSilverBells · 14/07/2025 17:16

Bumping. Just over £10 000 now. £40 000 to go