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

They always could continue swimming.
In the men's or in the mixed.
But no - they want the women's as well. Grabby and selfish.

PP are right, the time for a Judicial Review is now. And by someone who uses the ponds.
City of London is a tiny LA which is useless in many respects, so expect they'll fight this forever though.

And I'm calling bullshit on the claims that the 'regular swimmers' and 'local residents' were the ones most supportive of excluding women who want the law upheld.

I'm not saying there wasn't a majority - I don't know, and it is fecking Luxury Belief Central, after all - but I filled in that consultation and I was asked if I was a regular swimmer there and a local resident. My answers were no and no, but I could see no checking at all would be done to verify if I were.

No, not at all. They were (to my mind anyway) using the consultation as a fig leaf to hide behind. But now that has been completed they will have to make a decision whether to keep the current arrangements or change them.

This was also referred to in the judgment:

[66] ...the Corporation wishes to consider legal advice about the effects of FWS
in the light of the outcome of the consultation. In my view this is an appropriate course given the complex and highly sensitive issues at stake.

I did think the court action was premature. The fight continues.

Yes, bizarre. Perhaps people thought that trans women were actually women and female. It seems to be a common misconception.

To suggest they don't like the idea of 'mixed sex', but are, at the same time, in favour of 'mixed sex' when it comes to 'women only' is really quite a disconnect. I don't believe it.

This is the first reason why permission was refused, and it's what I predicted earlier in the thread. Really odd that Sex Matters went ahead with this.

Your view is in the minority.

90% of 38,000 consulted (34,200), most of whom are in the area and have swam there, have no issue with trans-inclusive ponds.

See my above post for how reliable that data is.

Quite probably. We know thanks to the very deliberate targeting and policing of language at a very early stage by stonewall & TRA, that many ppl think a trans woman is a woman who wants to identify as a man

it's all bloody irrelevant though. The law is the law. We don't hold consultations on other laws and ask ppl whether they think organisations should bother complying with it or not bother if they disagree with it

The law is the law. We don't hold consultations on other laws and ask ppl whether they think organisations should bother complying with it or not bother if they disagree with it

Exactly @Theeyeballsinthesky

Alternatively a man refused entry to the women’s pond could bring a case on the grounds that other men have been granted access.

For example, if a woman wanted to swim in the Men's Pond with it's better facilities (it is larger and has a diving board) then she is not allowed to do so unless she also has the PC of gender reassignment.

So is the next step another Man Friday type action followed by a court case?

I have no issue with trans inclusive ponds either.

Transwomen in the men's, transmen in the women's. Fine.

I do have an issue with men in the women's. Transwomen are men.

Give over with that. There were no checks in place to verify whether respondents were answering truthfully.

It’s very likely that the link to the survey was circulated on places like Reddit (as it was on MN) and so I’d be very surprised if the numbers of people categorising themselves as local and/or as previous Pond swimmers was in any way accurate.

I’m not too knowledgeable about this, but…

What would happen if a woman went in the men’s pool, saying she is a trans man? What would she have to other than wear suitable clothing?

(inspired by the poster saying the men have a bigger pool)

Disclaimer - I hate swimming. You will NEVER find me at any of the pools.

Yes, it's just kicked it all down the road really, because they have to make a difficult (for them) choice at some point: they have to uphold the law ie make the Men's and Ladies' Ponds single-sex, or they have to change the signage and any marketing and advertising about the Ponds to make clear that all three Ponds are mixed-sex.

I await their decision with interest.

I think they might need to change the constitution, too. Iirc it does specify mens' and ladies' swimming.

If they had an issue, they wouldn’t swim there.

This exactly, nobody should be relying on ‘data’ without any way of knowing if even the most basic details given are true, or any check around how many submissions any individual person made

Did you perhaps mean to say 'most of whom claim to live in the area and have swum there?' No steps were taken to verify identity of those completing the survey, which is amazingly common when someone wants to ensure their vote goes a certain way.

Right. Like the time I raised the subject of a creche being potentially useful for mothers who wanted to attend a thing and was told it was unnecessary, there were no mothers attending.

I guess in the minds of the trans inclusive, all the rape survivors and religious women are just nasty bigots who dont deserve access anyway.

I think those women are an inconvenience and an impediment at the very least, @ArabellaScott

66% were opposed to making all the ponds mixed sex! That seems a bizarre figure if 86% agreed with keeping the ponds trans inclusive.

I would rather an independent 3rd party had done the survey.

I agree that it should be regular users of the ponds who individually lodge claims.

Interesting. I can imagine a legal argument about whether the constitution's use of the terms 'mens' and 'ladies' means those terms in the sense of the SC ruling.

MyAmpleSheep

"We don't have a good precedent for "there can't be a bio women+trans women" pond yet. There's no judgement that makes it explicit"

I hope someone else explains that we do but I'm going to explain why Transwomen should pray that it never changes.

I open a shop and say it's for bio women but men who are happy to be male can come in too.

So in effect all women including transmen and all men other than those who identify as women.

Others like the idea and it spreads to gyms, restaurants, supermarkets, schools, housing and all hospital trusts. Pretty soon a trans-identifying man can't get on a bus, get a job, a home or any medical treatment at all.

Effectively banning transwomen from all public life the way they often claim they have been.

But we won't because we're civilised and we can't because the law forbids it. Just as it forbids "bio women+trans women"