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

TT are tweeting now:

Good morning. Today we shall be tweeting from the Application for Permission to Judicial Review being brought by Sex Matters against the City Of London Corporation about their policy governing admission to the Hampstead Ponds open-air swimming areas, changing rooms and showers.

From TT

J: We will get started while my clerk goes to find and download the correct version. Have read all the documents. I am v familiar with Hampstead Heath so will not need any description of the area.

Screen shot of abbreviations as I'm struggling to copy them !

From TT

TC: Thank you for reading Miss Forstater's statement. SM claims that the admission rules to two of the ponds constitutue discrimination under the EA2010

TC: Rules were a formal committee decision in July 2025, pending a consultation.

J I have correct version of the bundle.

TC: No date set at the July meeting but you will see from R skeleton that they expect March 2026

TC: You will know that we applied for expedition of the JR, which will help the R in that decision.

TC: We say that determination of this permission claim in advance of the R's final decision (which is some months away) - J you are saying R should delay decision pending this case? TC: That R can take advantage of, rather.

TC: We say, with the exception of making the Ladies and Men's pond fully mixed sex - which R says does not want to do - that only a strict restriction to biological sex can be used.

TC: This is a permission hearing, so all I need is to prove arguability - the R needs a knockout blow.

TC: Shall be arguing for expedition as well as my case itself. [lists the 8 headings he will be arguing]

TC: You set 1 day for this hearing to include oral judgement?
J: Yes. Mr Cross if you aim to finish about 12.30 - we may not manage to get to oral judgment. I need to allow plenty of time

TC: there is a map -
J I honestly don't need it - walk there often!
TC: I just wanted to draw attention to the relative sizes of the pond, and the different facilities (diving board at the Men's Pond).

.

So this is the start of the tribunal then? I thought the decision would be announced this morning?

From TT

TC: The meadow is a feature at the Ladies Pond, there isn't one at the men. There are photos of the changing and showering - the latter communal both indoor and outdoor. Ladies Pond building has a large window.

TC: There is a fully enclosed accessible changing room, so yes it's possible to use a non-visible space, but the point is that as a general thing there will be public nakedness in the communal areas.

TC: Turning to legalities. S29 of EA2010. There is no dispute that the R is subject to the provisions, as a service provider.

TC: Must not discriminate when providing the service by causing a detriment - examples are given here. Going on to S31

TC: Notes that "service" includes facilities.
TC: Sex discrimination - direct and indirect - S25 ties the two together into "discriminate" as used in S29.

It's a hearing as to whether permission to proceed will be granted, with a judgement this pm. I think!

I'm looking forward to this. It's so obviously misogyny with this one; the fact the police immediately removed the women in the men's pond but continued to let the creeps into the women's says it all. I know a previous poster on another thread who was very familiar with it all had said that many women were self excluding. It's ridiculous it has got to this stage.

From TT

TC: So S13 - direct discrimination [DD] because of protected characteristic [PC] - there is no possible justification for DD, other than in relation to age.

J: I am more familiar with HRArt14 claims than EA - is this "similarly situated" in that context comparable?
TC: Yes that is the analogue
TC: Staying with service provision - S31.10 mentions Sched3 -
J: This is an interpretation section?
TC: interpretation and exceptions
J: OK let's leave that there
TC: There is no dispute with R over this part
J: Oddly phrased but fine.

TC: p40 of the bundle. These are variations on a theme - J you need not engage with each because no claim re this is being made in response.
TC: This discusses services separated by sex, and then there is also provision for single-sex services, meaning it is only provided to women or to men, compared to providing to all but separated by sex. Important to understand the two.
.

From TT

J: Yes I pondered about this. That the ponds could fall under either? Is the Ladies Pond "a service" or "part of a service".
TC: Indeed, will be discussing further later

.TC: But want to draw your attention to a further nuance - that a service can sometimes be provided differently for each sex. There are bases in each case for duty-bearer to avoid liability for sex discrimination in each of the situations.
TC: What all the provisions have in common is that they only exist to stop liability for discrimination, when the D is based on sex.
TC: And the word 'sex' here, per Supreme Court, applies only to biological sex.
TC: A person who trans-identifies remains of their biological sex.
TC: If I trans-identify, or whether or not I have the PC of gender reassignment, or whether I have a Gender Recognition Certificate, I do not change my sex for the purposes of the EA2010
.TC: So a provider can't avoid liability via Sch3 in a situation where a service is provided to both sexes.

That was the expectation going in, but the judge said this am that given the timing the oral judgement may not be today.

Yes, fair point!

From TT

TC: So a provider can't avoid liability via Sch3 in a situation where a service is provided to both sexes.
TC: This is a change in our understanding - people previously thought trans-identifying meant ppl count as the opposite sex. The EHRC used to think so.
Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
6m
TC: The EHRC Code of Practice -
J: what year?
TC: 2011. R has included it as part of grounds of resistance, there is a para from that CoP in their bundle.
Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
5m
TC: That is what was said in 2011. The code is still extant because only the Secretary Of State can revoke it, and she has not yet.
Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
5m
TC: Or, people thought that trans-identifying ppl with a GRC (changes sex for some legal purposes) changed their sex for EA2010 - but FWS at SC found they do not.
Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
4m
TC: EA2010 defines PC of gender reassignment [reads the definition]
Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
3m
TC: Don't have to change physiological attributes. 'Transsexual' is the language of the Act - someone with PC of GR. People talk of 'trans people' but that is not the language of the Act.
Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
3m
TC: Note also must be a 'settled intention' for the change.
Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
2m
TC: Supreme Court considered what the intention of the EA paragraphs was. [Refers to authorities bundle]
Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
1m
TC: There is a section on separate and single-sex services. If you begin at para 211?
J: I have read the judgment a number of times, but yes will now look again at this section [J reads]
Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
29s
TC: The intention is to allow exclusion based on the protected characteristic - to authorised what would otherwise be unlawful DD based on sex. It gives example of swimming areas

There’s a mixed pond so surely trans people can use that. They don’t have to use the ladies!

From TT

TC: So far I've focussed on my primary case, direct discrimination. Turning now to indirect discrimination [ID]
TC: [reads definition]
11:08 AM · Dec 17, 2025
·
151
Views
Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
3m
TC: identifies four limbs, and provides a defence that such a policy [PCP] can be justified.
Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
2m
TC: The decision that I challenge was made a meeting of the CoL Committee on 16/7/25. In the bundle, p432 - 2nd page of an Officer's Report to the Cttee. DL is correctly drawing my attention to the recommendation to consult.
Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
1m
TC: This is correct but what I am focussing on is the decision to continue the existing arrangements, see -

[DL is asking J to look at another part of the minutes first]
Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
18s
TC: Resolution is made not to change the existing arrangements - adopting officer's recommendation 4. They had discussed whether or not to do so, and, decided they would. Including not imposing any timeframe. This was 16th July

From TT

TC: Thereafter new signs were put up at the Ladies and Men's Ponds. p199 Ladies, p201 Mens.
Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
1m
J: to clarify - I accept new signs went up. Do you accept the signs are in substance the same as policy before?
TC: No I don't
Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
22s
J: Where there signs before?
TC: No - just said 'women only'. No attempt at explanation.
DL: Old signs are on p202
TC: Indeed - thank you Mr Stilitz

From TT

TC: Before this, access was governed by the Policy -
J: Have just noticed that clock is wrong! Sorry - carry on

TC: Gender Policy adopted May 2019 - p282 is announcement of the policy. p284 is 'notes to editors' - outlines their previous understanding, that EA2010 says you cannot discriminate if someone's 'gender identity' differs from 'sex assigned at birth

Sorry got to dash out!

It all seems so bloody obvious! What defence is going to be put forward??

I stupidly logged out of my Mac and X has decided I need to generate a code (which I can’t do). Sadly no C&P from me in my nebulous/feline/Prof identity (unless X helpdesk are super-speedy).

The last consultation was overseen by Edward Lord, who ignored most female responses for reasons that I can’t recall.

Yes, but explaining precisely what you mean and how it operates is less alienating and less of a cliched mantra than 'the patriarchy hates women' , I think.

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.

if they still exist. Which personally I seriously doubt.

The judges questions are worrying me.

This is just to allow permission to proceed to a full hearing though right?

Judicial review cases set a very high bar for the claimant. Not a done deal by any means

As far as I can understand the arguments so far (which is not much) the discussion is what are the interests of the named parties, eg Maya, in the case? This is to stop decisions being challenged by any old busybody. Also, why this court and not individual discrimination case in lower court? And are they time barred anyway?

City of London
We say 5 reasons to reject.

   1, Premature 
   2out of time
   3 SM is a busybody and has no standing
  4 Obviously alternate remedy in County Court
  5 In any case no arguable grounds of challenge.

Renumbered after interference