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

Yes, this.
It's the solution we've been suggesting for ages wrt toilets, changing rooms, facilities etc etc.

The pools already exist in this format, there are no conversion costs or disruption involved.

But it's still not being accepted.
Surprise sur-fucking-prise.

Surely 'the simplest solution' in any cases like this is to stick to the obvious, established configuration of men's, women's and mixed sex, and use the Supreme Court's definition of these terms. That provides for 100% of users

Sure, in theory. But, as we've seen, in practice it has stirred up a huge nasty hornet's nest of bitterness and dispute and fury.

That's unfortunately true, but sometimes you have to stand up to nasty bitter bullies, otherwise they think they can get anything they want, whether or not they are entitled to it, if they are nasty and bitter and furious enough.
It's the 'might is right' approach, isn't it?

Or the 'let's just capitulate' approach.
Which I'm not keen on. And which disadvantages many women.

It seems to me that we can't possibly make everybody happy, given the current state of affairs, so throwing the doors open to everyone would be the least bad option. I know many here disagree. But at least now you've heard a different view.

Yeh thank goodness you're here to share your anti-women views with us because otherwise we may never hear such views. 🙄

Oh, I'm always hearing different views, don't worry about that.

TIMs are fewer in number than women with reasons to need or want single-sex facilities, so how on that basis would you justify calling organising life around them the least bad option?

Well yes, throwing the doors to everything open to everyone is a possible solution, and I have heard it before, as I'm sure most posters on here have.
It's not that having everything mixed sex has never crossed our minds
It's just that it seems like the least good option, for many reasons.

But it would mean acceding to the disproportionate demands of a tiny number of people, not because their demands are reasonable, but because they, as you put it, stirred up a hornet's nest, with a side order of threats and violence.

For that reason alone, apart from the merits or demerits of sex-segregated spaces, I think giving so much influence over social and political issues to such a small number of people just because they are more effective hornet's-nest-stirrers is not a good option.

Has it occurred to your friend that the women who don't want two mixed-sex ponds & no female-only pond are forced to self-exclude?
By one's 70s one really ought to understand that one's own consent is not transferable.

A mixed-sex pond already exists. At least try to know what you're bletherering about.

You're forgetting the large numbers of liberal-minded Londoners who want to keep the ponds as they are now, ie notionally single-sex but in practice trans-inclusive. (Not how I voted btw.) Unless you're telling me that the 33,000 people who voted that way in the consultation are all TRA ringers? Mmm-hmmm.

Well of course they should be trans inclusive

the men's pond should be fully inclusive of TW and the women's pond fully inclusive of TM

No, but the numbers and percentages are, as pointed out on here, a little odd to say the least, and don’t seem to add up.
The questions were ambiguously worded and fairly likely to have contributed to strange answers.
But more to the point, it doesn’t matter how many people said yes to TIMs in a consultation: for one thing, there is the law, and for another there is (again as pointed out here, more than once) the inconvenient truth that you can’t transfer consent.

Women would be perfectly happy with arrangements if their women only facilities remained women only. The solution for women is not to make everything mixed sex. That may well exclude quite a few women altogether.

And If men with trans identities themselves were happy wth mixed sex they'd use the mixed sex pond, already, wouldn't they? However, Some men with trans identities are only happy when they are shoving it in women's faces and making them feel uncomfortable and/or defeated. They don't identify 'with' women at all, only 'as' women. They clearly have little or no respect.

I suspect that the respondents to the survey did not have their identities confirmed, and so the survey was subject to a concerted campaign of obfuscation.. I also imagine that quite a number of respondents are confused about what a transwoman actually is. They think, judging from much previous evidence, that a transwoman is a woman who identifies as a man, not an actual man.

There is no such thing as single sex if men are permitted into women only spaces and places.

Too much of a pile on to reply to everyone individually... Look, the reason I voted to make every pond mixed sex was because it seemed like the simplest way to allow inclusion for everyone who wanted it, and abide by the law as set down by the SC judgement (which I don't believe the current setup does) - while still avoiding the rather horrific scenario of swimmers being asked to confirm their biological sex at the gate, in case of ambiguity. Because, in this day and age, there would absolutely be ambiguity, and challenges, and plenty of nastiness.

Until recently the women's pond has been one of the few places that orthodox Jewish, conservative Muslim and other women could mingle, so its really not liberal minded to want to put a stop to that.

I'd be sad to lose the women-only aspect - I've enjoyed it in the past. But I recognise that the world has changed.

Yes but those women don't matter do they?? We must apparently accept that "the world has moved on", men larping as women are far more important to defend than actual women

it being apparently soooo hard for men to stay out of spaces that are not for them and where they don't belong

It hasn't. Women are still afraid of male violence and traumatised by being vulnerable in the presence of male physiology. Women with fundamental religious views still can't swim in an area where men are present. Women who simply don't want to see vain men in skimpy speedos showing off everything they've got still exist.

All that's changed is a very tiny group of men want to force the world to accept their erroneous view that they are women, or get off on their AGP, and are insisting that they use female only spaces when mixed spaces exist.