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

I wish I lived local to this. My (male) DP would be really up for swimming in the ladies pond to prove a point

Well of course - they are the ones using the ponds under the existing arrangements. It actually says something that there are people swimming there that are not happy - they're just having to grin and bear it ☹️

And as PP have stated - it was child's play to rig the survey. I completed it and said I was a regular user - I swam there once about 30 years ago. There was no facility to verify address either. The survey was worthless.

So they adopted a "self-identification" basis to define "user" too. How fitting.

It's a shame that details like that are missing from the press write-ups about the consultation results.

This keeps getting pushed back doesn’t it. By Labour too.

We have the SC judgement, do men get access to all three pools or not? Time to decide.

IMHO, it doesn’t matter if most people are fine with trans women in the women’s pond.

The results still show a sizeable number who aren’t, and that number could be even higher if you look at actual women using it.

The City of London has to think about all potential users. And as a public authority it also has specific legal responsibilities to meet the needs of religious or medical (trauma) users.

That 10-20% (or more) are real women who could end up effectively excluded from swimming just because the majority don’t mind. And let’s be honest, the majority might not even care about keeping it single-sex!

Policy by polling is ridiculous. They wouldn't for example, ban burkinis if most people wanted that...

Surely the right way for this to be dealt with is for the EHRC to do their job properly. Shouldn’t they be challenging organisations whose policies are clearly breaking equality laws? I thought they had written to some organisations already.

edited to add that I support Sex Matters trying to take this case rather than an individual having to do it, I think that in saying the case should be taken by an individual the judge wasn’t taking into account how horrible that is for the person involved and the fact that the EHRC have enforcement powers which they should be using here?

edited to add that I support Sex Matters trying to take this case rather than an individual having to do it, I think that in saying the case should be taken by an individual the judge wasn’t taking into account how horrible that is for the person involved and the fact that the EHRC have enforcement powers which they should be using here?

Absolutely. Anyone who makes a legal challenge is going to be subjected to the usual abuse, rape threats and death threats from trans activists. Why would any woman put herself up for that?

The EHRC really needs to get on and do its job.

Its illegal to discriminate in the UK unless you invoke SSEs. And those can only be on basis of bio sex.

IMHO, it doesn’t matter if most people are fine with trans women in the women’s pond.

I agree. Most people were happy with "no blacks, no Irish, no dogs", too. That's why there had to be a law about it.

I read posts on trans reddit UK about how popular or unpopular a viewpoint is and how most/many/some/no women support this that or the other, and think it's all irrelevant. Popularity is important to politicians and people who write laws. Change the law, if that's the popular point of view, and we'll campaign against it. Popularity is irrelevant to the interpretation of laws.

Yes.

Michael Foran:

knowingius.org/p/sex-matters-v-city-of-london

I know; what I meant was I can imagine someone representing the Ponds arguing that we don’t and can’t know what those who wrote the constitution meant by ‘men’ and ‘ladies’, and/or that times have changed and the constitution no longer accurately represents or reflects society.
I'm not saying I’d agree with that.

Are you saying that a pond for ‘people who identify as women’ does not disproportionately exclude men? That it is in fact utilised by equal numbers of men and women?

This keeps coming up about the EA and the EHRC.

At the moment all they have to do in relation to the Supreme Court ruling, which apparently they already have, is change the signs to say Women and Trans Women.

And has already been said unless anyone can say it what way it would be "proportionate" to have a swimming pond that is only for biological women, there is nothing to make them do it.

ie they are not invoking the EA.

The Supreme Court ruling is about the protected characteristic of sex in relation to discrimination.

If somehow someone could prove there is a demand for women only sex based they would probably just say ask the local council to provide it. This isn't our role.

Just out of interest has any one seen or know of any references to the founding principles of the Hampstead Ponds. If the original documents that set up this provision talks about women and for instance modesty or safety, that might be a better arguement.

Even within the Charity sector where all the Stonewalled trans flag wavers are out in force admit that in relation to the Supreme Court Ruling that they made need to change their stated aims and objectives. Needless to say rather than taking this relatively quick option, they moan about it being too much trouble.

No, you CAN NOTdiscriminate on the basis of sex unless you invoke the SSE in the EA. That means you cannot have anything labelled ‘women’s’ or ‘female’ unless you are invoking the SSE. And you cannot invoke the SSE for women then let some men in.

They still have acess to a swimming pool.

Your arguement is that everyone thinks like everyone (well nearly everyone) on FWR thinks.

Sadly as we know, in terms of any show of mass support for women's sex based rights, your arguement would not connect.

They would just say CLC is being kind to trans people, and the rest of us can just get on with our swimming.

Hard as it is to accept, most people in the UK dont care to take this up as an issue.

Saying things like this over and over again on FWR isn't going to change how most people think.

Now if FWR was in charge of news channels that might make a difference.

Sadly this is unlikely to ever happen.

Lol just got deleted on Reddit (not the transgender subreddit) for making a similar point to here on an article being discussed.

Turns out "defending single sex spaces" or mentioning "safeguarding" is defined as "transphobia" according to subReddit rules.

Can't have better evidence of how ridiculous this is. I'm extraordinarily careful in how I phrase matters.

Of course extremely aggressive and hateful comments against TERFs, JKR fly by...

Why don't they just be honest and make them all mixed sex, if that is what they want to do. Otherwise it is like a vegan restaurant sneaking some beef stock into their dishes and justifying it by saying that the majority of people don't mind eating animal products and that vegans shouldn't make a fuss because other people don't care.

Most people in real life do object when an adult of the opposite sex walks into their changing room.

Where are the trans men in all this, we need them to start using the men's pond. Somehow I suspect they'll do whatever keeps the men happy and make do with the mixed pond.

I'm thinking of issuing a questionnaire to our local lads In black Northface clothing & balaclavas to see how they feel about the law on Scheduled Drugs. Yknow, seeing as the law is apparently optional via a narrow survey.

A fair chunk of them are on Reddit whimpering about "transandrophobia" from TIMs & enbies & how marginalised they are within the "trans community". They're so close to getting it but can't let themselves understand that it's just the same old sexism & misogyny even when directed towards bearded ladies.

Well yes, that’s the TRA argument you’re making. It’s not actually been tested in court. This decision, as Sex Matters said, just kicks the can down the road. Whether “women and “trans women” (ie a group of men under the Equality Act) is a legal grouping and doesn’t a) indirectly discriminate against women or b) doesn’t discriminate against other men is the issue, and the SSEs are only based on sex as per the Supreme Court, not sex and one gender identity.

Traditionally, applications for judicial review have not gone all that well for GC claimants. What has gone well is discrimination cases based on actual detriments experienced by individuals.

And that is what the judge is alluding to. The City Corporation haven't yet set their policy. If they do set one which causes someone to suffer a detriment under the Equality Act, that person would need to bring a case against them.