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

Well that's a very interesting way to put it. Where does trans-identifying people's reluctance to use a correct-sex pool (and therefore self-exclude) sit in relation to religiously observant people's reluctance to use a mixed-sex pool and self-exclude?

There are approximately the same number of Jewish people as people identifying as trans, in the UK. Only a small proportion of Jewish people have observances that would make mixed sex bathing a problem, but there are 15 times as many Muslim people, and so it's perhaps possible that the pool of trans-identifying people who might access to the Hampstead ponds is very similar to the number of people who would require single-sex bathing for religous reasons.

I think its quite unusual to have a swimming facility that is single sex all the time, so would it be difficult to argue that the council has to make that provision?

Actually I think you have already answered this question!

I don’t think it’s that so much as - such a reading of the EA would mean councils and service providers would have to provide for any and all religious prohibitions.

Religion decides followers can’t go out in daylight - council must provide night time services. Religion requires all trash to only be handled by men - council must provide male only ben crews. Religion requires children are Educated in the morning only and spend the rest of the day with their parents - council must provide morning only schooling. Religion requires followers do not allow their efforts to contribute to war - government must provide a way to pay taxes that do not go to the armed services. Etc.

We don't have this problem at the beach. Everyone just changes under a dry robe.

TC: And since FWS, that reliance has to be on biological sex.
J: So the obvious answer is to make all the ponds mixed sex. Gets round that.

I've been pondering this since, how the Judge understood very clearly and very early on that TW are male.

Sometimes this is something that they don't seem to get, or pretend not to understand, and want to treat the TW as a woman. Surely this shows that she gets it.

I don't know how she can rule that TW should have access to the female only changing area or pond (if they keep the pond single sex). Even if they make all ponds mixed sex, which pretty much no-one wants, TW will still be excluded from the female changing area.

Based on what the judge said in relation to FWS, surely she can't come to any other conclusion.

On the basis of this decision by Mrs Justice Lieven, I am reassured that the Hampstead Ponds application for Judicial Review is going to get serious, cogent and thoughtful analysis from the Judge:

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2025/3338

A trans identifying woman refused permission to be registered as a child’s father. This was indeed an interference with the applicant’s ECHR Article 8 human rights but doing so was proportional and legitimate.

Permission for the JR has been refused 😔

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

City of London has published the results of its consultation:

https://news.cityoflondon.gov.uk/consultation-results-published-on-hampstead-heath-bathing-ponds/

I don't t see what the point of this consultation was. Even if 100% of respondents said tw should be able to use the women's pond, don't they still have to follow the law?

What does this mean? That sex matters were premature with their JR application? That they were asking for a JR of the wrong thing?

Yes it seems to be about the timing of it

So the Court seems to think that the City of London bods will carry out an unbiased consultation (given their binning responses they disliked in past consultations on the same issue). I think the Court is being naive with regards the effect of Genderism on bureaucracy.

That reminds me of a Scottish court turning down a JR of school’s trans policy I think (forget the details) who stated that Stonewall Diversity training was just an internal staff thing…

This is the relevant bit from the Telegraph article

On Thursday morning the High Court ruled that the charity’s case cannot proceed.
In a ruling dismissing the legal action, Mrs Justice Lieven said that the “appropriate forum” for the claim was a county court, rather than the High Court.
She said the case should be brought by an individual, instead of a group, who claims they have been discriminated against as a result of the trans policy.

So basically another case of women need to wait until they are harmed to raise the issue?

Wrong thread

Yes, and the hoops you have to jump through to get a case to court make justice unavailable to most women. The system couldn't be more Kafkaesque, especially considering this is supposedly the system upholding equality.

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/sex-matters-v-the-mayor-and-commonalty-and-citizens-of-the-city-of-london/

So we would need a woman who no longer feels able to use the pond, with a good reason that can be explained in court and which is likely to be accepted, to bring a case.

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

Is that correct?

From a quick reading of the judgment - both.

The judge appears to be saying that until the City of London review is finished and a decision taken then there is nothing that there can be a judicial review of as there hasn't been a decision yet.

Also, the current policy has been in effect for so long that it is too late to have a judicial review of the original decision.

The judgment also says that Sex Matters does not have standing and that it would have been more appropriate for an individual to bring a claim in the County Court. The judge said

[55] In my view the more appropriate person to bring this claim is an individual who says that they have been discriminated against by decisions about access to the Ponds. The starting point of the Claimant’s case is direct discrimination, and the statutory scheme in the Equality Act 2010 is focused on individuals who say they have been treated less favourably.
.

Last year, my DH brought a direct discrimination claim against the WI and the judge is saying here that it should be somebody like my DH who has been personally affected by this.

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, a trans-identifying woman can swim in the Men's Pond but not any other woman.

Trans Reddit claims to have the results of the consultation. Is that in the judgment?

www.bbc.com/news/articles/c70lyrpekr2o

"A consultation run by the City of London Corporation and published on Thursday found that nearly 90% of respondents backed trans-inclusive access to the ponds.

More than 38,000 people took part in the consultation over a period of two months.
Of those, 84% of respondents to the consultation had swum at the bathing ponds and 74% lived in London, the City of London said."

Results are in. The courts have thrown out Maya's case. Trans women can continue swimming. Out of 38,000 respondents in the consultation there is a super-super majority supporting trans women, most of whom live in the area and have swum there.

It's on the City of London website:

https://news.cityoflondon.gov.uk/consultation-results-published-on-hampstead-heath-bathing-ponds

'Of six options considered for the Kenwood Ladies, Highgate Men’s and Hampstead Mixed Ponds, the most popular, with support from 86% of respondents, was retaining the existing access arrangements, in which trans men and women are able to use the pond of their choice.

The same percentage opposed introducing strict single sex access, 90% of people rejected requiring trans swimmers to use separate changing rooms or have separate swimming sessions, while 66% opposed making all ponds mixed sex.'

The people responding are very confused as to what mixed sex is.

CoL's consultation doesn't override the law, does it?