Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Sex Matters - Hampstead Heath Ponds -

720 replies

SexRealismBeliefs · 15/12/2025 18:42

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

Hampstead women’s pond sued over transgender access

Sex Matters claims that the City of London Corporation is defending a policy that defies the Supreme Court ruling on single-sex services

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
28
SinnerBoy · 29/01/2026 16:49

Christinapple · Today 13:31

The courts have thrown out Maya's case.

That's the sort of febrile nonsense we've come to love and expect from you, Chris!

ConstanzeMozart · 29/01/2026 16:50

MyAmpleSheep · 17/12/2025 18:38

Surely the only possible outcomes can be a protected bio female pond, or three mixed ponds, since by law there can't be a bio women+trans women pond?

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.

CoL's barrister today put the argument (one among many) that since the division is by gender identity, it's not trying to be a separate sex service.

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. Doesn't the WI case (shout-out to @Another2Cats and her DH!) speak to that? I thought that if you allow some men (here, TIMs) into a facility or service you can't disallow other men (men who aren't TIMs) or it's discrimination?

CoL's barrister today put the argument (one among many) that since the division is by gender identity, it's not trying to be a separate sex service.
That's fine, I think, as long as they no longer call them the Men's and the Ladies' Ponds.

NB I am fully prepared and willing to be told I'm talking shite here. I get very bogged down and am easily bewildered when it comes to legal stuff.

BrokenSunflowers · 29/01/2026 16:56

CoL's barrister today put the argument (one among many) that since the division is by gender identity, it's not trying to be a separate sex service.

As ‘gender’ is highly correlated with sex, discriminating on the basis of gender would amount unlawful sex discrimination.

MyAmpleSheep · 29/01/2026 17:11

ConstanzeMozart · 29/01/2026 16:50

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. Doesn't the WI case (shout-out to @Another2Cats and her DH!) speak to that? I thought that if you allow some men (here, TIMs) into a facility or service you can't disallow other men (men who aren't TIMs) or it's discrimination?

CoL's barrister today put the argument (one among many) that since the division is by gender identity, it's not trying to be a separate sex service.
That's fine, I think, as long as they no longer call them the Men's and the Ladies' Ponds.

NB I am fully prepared and willing to be told I'm talking shite here. I get very bogged down and am easily bewildered when it comes to legal stuff.

You're not talking shite at all. But the matter hasn't come up in front of a court yet. The WI conceded the argument without a judge having to opine on it.

You are articulating a cogent, consistent and reasonable interpretation of the law. But no judge (the cadre of people who need to agree) has signed their name to it yet. That's what I mean by "we don't have a good precedent."

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 29/01/2026 17:14

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

Stopbringingmicehome · 29/01/2026 17:18

I filled in the CoL consultation , I found it long and confusing even with the guidance provided by sex matters. I'm not surprised about the results as it was engineered to be opaque

Babyboomtastic · 29/01/2026 17:24

Easytoconfuse · 29/01/2026 16:07

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.

They 'identified' as swimmers of the pool I expect 😂.

teawamutu · 29/01/2026 17:29

Babyboomtastic · 29/01/2026 17:24

They 'identified' as swimmers of the pool I expect 😂.

In the progressive sense, ie isn't but wants everyone to pretend?

Yes.

MyAmpleSheep · 29/01/2026 17:38

This reply has been deleted

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

To amplify your point: if unlawful discrimination was in any sense already "unpopular" there wouldn't need to be a law against it. The law is very much there to protect minorities with "unpopular" opinions.

I always feel you can tell a lot about societies (historical and present-day ones) by the things they have to outlaw, and the penalties put in place for transgressors.

RanchRat · 29/01/2026 17:42

Seems most of the users are happy with the status quo.

Greyskybluesky · 29/01/2026 17:45

RanchRat · 29/01/2026 17:42

Seems most of the users are happy with the status quo.

It's not most of the users though, is it?

It's most of the respondents. Very different.

Another2Cats · 29/01/2026 17:48

ConstanzeMozart · 29/01/2026 16:50

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. Doesn't the WI case (shout-out to @Another2Cats and her DH!) speak to that? I thought that if you allow some men (here, TIMs) into a facility or service you can't disallow other men (men who aren't TIMs) or it's discrimination?

CoL's barrister today put the argument (one among many) that since the division is by gender identity, it's not trying to be a separate sex service.
That's fine, I think, as long as they no longer call them the Men's and the Ladies' Ponds.

NB I am fully prepared and willing to be told I'm talking shite here. I get very bogged down and am easily bewildered when it comes to legal stuff.

"CoL's barrister today put the argument (one among many) that since the division is by gender identity, it's not trying to be a separate sex service."

The WI made a similar argument. They said:

"The Defendant is not relying on Schedule 16 EqA to create a single
sex association"

and

"As a membership association, the Defendant is entitled to set a subjective
Membership Criterion if it wishes to do so."

Part of DH's reply to that was around the issue that @BrokenSunflowers mentions above.

There was a sex discrimination case back in 1996 (Smith v Safeway Plc [1996] EWCA Civ J0216-2, [1996] IRLR 456) involving men and women having different uniforms and dress standards at work.

The court held that it was not discrimination to require different uniforms etc because it meant that both sexes had a "conventional" appearance. The judge noted that a code that applied equally to both men and women could still treat one sex less favourably:

“As [counsel for the employers] has pointed out, a code which made identical provisions for men and women but which resulted in one or other having an unconventional appearance, would have an unfavourable impact on that sex being compelled to appear in an unconventional mode. Can there be any doubt that a code which required all employees to have 18-inch hair, earrings and lipstick, would treat men unfavourably by requiring them to adopt an appearance at odds with conventional standards?”

In this example, the treatment complained of is not merely a requirement to wear lipstick, it is a requirement for male employees to dress unconventionally for their sex while female employees are permitted to dress conventionally for their sex.

In the case of the WI, they had a requirement to "live as women". In a similar manner to above, "living as a woman" is not going to be a burden for women as we only need to carry on living as we always have done within the very broad parameters of whatever “live as women” means. Women are not required to alter how they live their lives in any way.

[Please note, I am not in any way equating "wearing lipstick" with "living as women" in any way at all]

In contrast, a requirement that men must “live as women” involves a much greater burden. It involves utterly rejecting a conventional lifestyle, it may also involve the use of drugs and/or surgery.

So, a man is required to live a life outside of any sort of meaningful, conventional understanding of what being a man is. Women just have to go on living as they always have done. Framed like this, a trans-inclusive policy is not neutral as between the sexes and a man is treated less favourably than a woman.

The same would also apply in reverse to a woman who wanted to enter a trans-inclusive men's space.

There's also a complicated argument why this is direct rather than indirect discrimination.

In the CoL case though I think the term they use is anybody who "identifies as a woman". I don't know how much of a difference there is between a requirement to "live" as a woman and a requirement to "identify" as a woman.
.

Another thing to consider, I believe that a pp mentioned about there being a constitution and it mentioning men and women. This is another area to look at.

The CoL may argue that the meaning of the word 'women' has changed since whenever the constitution was written so as to include trans-identifying men.

And, it is true, that the meanings of words or what is included within a concept or category (women in this case), can change over time. The concept of ‘cruel and unusual punishments’ has not changed over the years since the Bill of Rights 1689, but many punishments which were not then thought to fall within that category would now be held to do so.

But what you cannot do is to construe a word to mean something conceptually different from what contemporary evidence shows must have been intended at the time.

To try and include a group (men) that is conceptually different from the ordinary, accepted, meaning of “women” is not possible without expressly altering the constitution to reflect that change (or so my DH argued).

plantcomplex · 29/01/2026 18:00

I wonder if Chris works for the BBC.

FallenSloppyDead2 · 29/01/2026 18:07

Kemi Badenoch on X:

The Supreme Court provided clarity a year ago: sex means biological sex. Men do not belong in female-only facilities. To give organisations certainty, the Government must publish the EHRC guidance. Until they do, the privacy, dignity and safety of women will remain at risk.

x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2016864449764745234

BrokenSunflowers · 29/01/2026 18:09

RanchRat · 29/01/2026 17:42

Seems most of the users are happy with the status quo.

“Most people who are happy with discriminate against women are happy to discriminate against women”

PassTheHanky · 29/01/2026 18:14

CoL's barrister today put the argument (one among many) that since the division is by gender identity, it's not trying to be a separate sex service.

I'm definitely not a legal bod but I thought the law depended on definitions (e.g. sex = biological sex) and I've yet to see a legally agreed definition of what 'gender identity' actually means?

BrokenSunflowers · 29/01/2026 18:20

PassTheHanky · 29/01/2026 18:14

CoL's barrister today put the argument (one among many) that since the division is by gender identity, it's not trying to be a separate sex service.

I'm definitely not a legal bod but I thought the law depended on definitions (e.g. sex = biological sex) and I've yet to see a legally agreed definition of what 'gender identity' actually means?

You would have to show that having a pool for ‘feminine gender’ did not discriminate against men by, for example, disproportionately excluding men compared to women.

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 29/01/2026 18:27

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

IwantToRetire · 29/01/2026 18:28

If the arguement is that it is a membership organisation and can then say the EA doesn't apply, why was the consultation open?

But on the other hand if non members can swim there, are they saying that their facilities are open to members of the public but must accept what the members say the rules are.

Sadly unless there was a significant boycott of the "Women's" Pond they wont budge.

Even if a large number of local women said they felt exculded by the trans inclusive position they could be fobbed off by being told they aren't a public service provider.

I think that the fact that Sex Matters were said to not have status is important.

Presumably the Committee feels the responses to the consultation justify their decision.

ie they have allowed both members and no members to have a voice.

I think this is a sort of illustration of what the future holds. There will be more and more situations where institutions will conduct some sort of consultation to show that the majority that trans inclusive is okay, and biological women only is one a minority that there is no obligation should be catered to.

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 29/01/2026 18:30

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

Brefugee · 29/01/2026 18:40

SnowTrouble · 29/01/2026 15:00

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?

We need men to do it. Clearly women aren't listened to

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 29/01/2026 18:43

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

IwantToRetire · 29/01/2026 18:43

Quote:

Sex Matters is disappointed that our application for permission for a judicial review of the City of London’s decision to allow men into the women’s bathing pond, and vice versa, has been refused.
This decision was solely on procedural grounds. The High Court did NOT find that the City of London Corporation’s self-ID policy was lawful.

The hearing concerned whether to allow a challenge to the City of London’s decision to keep its policy in place pending the results of a consultation and review. The court considered the decision to put up new posters departing from the original policy, and also, alternatively, whether the old policy could be challenged now.

It did not consider whether the policy itself was lawful. That has not been considered in any court.

Sex Matters CEO Maya Forstater said:

“The fight for women’s safety, privacy and dignity in single-sex spaces will continue. Just because this particular claim was ruled out on procedural grounds does not give any service provider the green light to allow trans-identifying males into female facilities.

“The City’s policy and its unwillingness to defend the lawfulness of that policy in court simply pushes the risk of harassment and the cost and difficulty of taking legal cases onto individual women and members of staff. This is deeply unjust.”

article continues https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/the-fight-for-single-sex-spaces-continues/

The fight for single-sex spaces continues

Sex Matters is disappointed that our application for permission for a judicial review of the City of London’s decision to allow men into the women’s

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/the-fight-for-single-sex-spaces-continues/

MyAmpleSheep · 29/01/2026 18:47

IwantToRetire · 29/01/2026 18:28

If the arguement is that it is a membership organisation and can then say the EA doesn't apply, why was the consultation open?

But on the other hand if non members can swim there, are they saying that their facilities are open to members of the public but must accept what the members say the rules are.

Sadly unless there was a significant boycott of the "Women's" Pond they wont budge.

Even if a large number of local women said they felt exculded by the trans inclusive position they could be fobbed off by being told they aren't a public service provider.

I think that the fact that Sex Matters were said to not have status is important.

Presumably the Committee feels the responses to the consultation justify their decision.

ie they have allowed both members and no members to have a voice.

I think this is a sort of illustration of what the future holds. There will be more and more situations where institutions will conduct some sort of consultation to show that the majority that trans inclusive is okay, and biological women only is one a minority that there is no obligation should be catered to.

If the arguement is that it is a membership organisation and can then say the EA doesn't apply, why was the consultation open?

The EA2010 absolutely applies to membership organizations. Part 7 of the Act, which has 8 sections, is devoted to them.

IwantToRetire · 29/01/2026 18:53

MyAmpleSheep · 29/01/2026 18:47

If the arguement is that it is a membership organisation and can then say the EA doesn't apply, why was the consultation open?

The EA2010 absolutely applies to membership organizations. Part 7 of the Act, which has 8 sections, is devoted to them.

But they will say they aren't discriminating against any of the protected characteristics.

They are merely saying they cannot cater for all "beliefs".

So it may come down to when and if the Guidelines are every published, and even then if may come down to whether they go on saying "Women's Pond or use something that does not refer to sex being the definition of who the pond is for.