Sex Matters - Hampstead Heath Ponds -

[SexRealismBeliefs]

Sex Matters, a charity that campaigns for single-sex rights, will argue that the City of London Corporation is breaching equality law by allowing trans women to use Kenwood Ladies’ Pond on Hampstead Heath.

Hearing this Wednesday.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/cceca8ca-4167-4b04-875a-40ddacfea782?shareToken=e9fe25a546d20835f1a5a66564cbf27b

🤞

https://archive.ph/9cfUq

Is anyone from TT covering the hearing?

“we are reviewing our access rules to ensure they remain fair, lawful and respectful in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling”

Seriously? Would anyone really expect that to take more than 8 months???

Once more into the breech, just for the hard of learning. 🤬 Good luck to them with their argument, I do wonder why they have to argue it though, it seems like a no brainer to me City of London Corporation. 🤯

Where they really fall down in their argument as i understand it is a similar one that the WI use is i think a section 39 argument about promoting the interests of a minority group within the category of sex.

further, the fact that they have a mixed sex pond makes their defence a bit bonkers.

happy to be corrected.

I read that the ponds use the same legal firm as girl guiding and the WI. If so they've probably been advised to exclude men.

There are three ponds. So one would be male-only, one female-only, and one mixed sex. Couldn't be simpler!

Yes it's going to be hard to argue the need for men to have access to all three ponds.

Good luck Sex Matters, the world is watching!

The newer firm? Because they’ve had all sorts of bonkers legal advice to date.

If anyone had any wit they would have already put the matter to bed and addressed the issues of the male genitals on display in the ladies. Especially in light of their ‘consultation’ that would have put the matter to rest.

Well done Sex Matters!

I have been wondering - what’s the equivalent of say an Upton or Rose in the men’s?

Since they had no hormonal or surgical treatment, they were just wearing some make up or ‘women’s’ clothing.

A woman could rock up to the men’s pond in aftershave and jeans and a t-shirt and she’s a man?

They tried that and were round up and chased off. No lengthy trials or witch hunts.

The police were called and they were accused of ‘infiltrating’ the man’s pond.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/female-campaigners-selfidentify-as-men-to-infiltrate-male-only-pool-at-hampstead-heath-a3850556.html

One rule for the men’s spaces - such a freaking misogynistic movement!

For them to 'remain' it for all users, they would have to have been it in the first place. Which they aren't. They're just showing themselves up as members of the 'laws are for other people' brigade and it's time they found out that they aren't.

Till then, horses do not have to keep speed limits because they have no speedometers. If my car identifies as a horse, can I ignore all of them? Of course I can't. It's pure nonsense, and so is this current legal situation.

Honestly can't see how they will lose. If it says women's pond, it's for biological women only. Full stop.

Surely this can only go one way?
it seems so bloody obvious but who knows these days?
How long will we have to wait for a decision?

And their documented history of chucking women out of the men's pond proves it's not about inclusion either.

Can anyone explain what the legal hearing is about tomorrow - why do SM need permission to proceed?

I hope they do get permission because this will be an excellent test case post-FWS

it’s an application for permission to go forward with a full hearing for judicial review.

If you were following GLP’s challenge to the EHRC’s interim guidance. In that case GLPs application sucked and the Judge told them to go back and rewrite it, and represent it at a rolled up hearing where their application and claim would be heard all together (that was in late November, wasn’t it?)

we hope SM’s lwgal drafting is somewhat better and the Judge grants permission for the JR. I don’t think it’s a terribly high bar.

If they are allowed to proceed, hopefully in discovery they will get the full range of responses to the original survey in which they completely ignored all the responses that were from women wanting the pool to stay female only. Which was used as the basis of their decision making.

Which many of us on here contributed to.

Good luck and thank you, Sex Matters! Such important work. The fact that you have to do it at all shows how much the patriarchy hates women (and, thus, how much we need you to defend our rights).

It's not so much that " the patriarchy hates women" as much as the way that male/masculine desires, patterns of behaviour and standards are automatically prioritised or adopted over those of female people.

That is patriarchy though. Women fall lower in the pecking order than mens fetishes/wants and we have lost too many rights along the way because of said fetishes/wants.

Too late, but I wonder if a demonstration at the Lord/Lady Mayor's parade in the City of London last month could have had an impact.