City of London says Sex Matters "out of time" and has "no standing" re Hapstead Ponds

[IwantToRetire]

On 17th December there was a full-day permission hearing in our case against the City of London over the Hampstead ponds. A decision on whether the case can go forward is expected in January.
The permission hearing was held because the City of London, rather than defend the lawfulness of its policy of allowing men into the women’s pond, is trying to put up procedural barriers to the policy even being questioned.

It says that our claim is out of time because it has been following a gender self-ID policy since 2017. At the same time, it argues that our claim is premature because it is planning to change the policy for the Hampstead ponds next year following a consultation. It also argues that Sex Matters doesn’t have standing and that instead of answering our claim, individual women should bear the burden of bringing cases.
We say that this kind of squirming shouldn’t allow the City of London to duck and dive its way out of defending its policy and complying with the Equality Act.

If it is confident that its policy based on gender identity is lawful and doesn’t result in sex discrimination or harassment, it should defend that policy. It is in everyone’s interest to understand whether it is lawful to provide a service for women that includes men with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Full article at https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/sex-and-the-city-of-london/

No they didn't! Which is why we are hoping that the results of the original consultation [in which they admitted they binned all the responses that went against their plans] are exposed in the disclosure.

If it were a 'target' it would hardly be their latest, as problems with the management of the pond have been rattling around for years in various iterations.

You obviously don't know much about this OP: I'd stick to straightening bananas if I were you.

The ponds are open for everyone to use. It is a public facility. You have no idea how many women stay away because they want to swim in a female-only environment. But I'm sure you do know, if you're honest, that the answer isn't 'none'. It should be obvious that if there are three swimming ponds, there is an answer that means everybody is catered for. That isn't currently happening.

Did anyone follow the hearing? I don't understand why Sex Matters are JRing the Ponds at this point rather than waiting for the consultation to be finished, the responses analysed and a decision made. Can someone explain?

Is there any legal basis to the ‘out of time’ claim?

Because women have been protesting their policy since 2017. My whole awareness of the self I.d business and GC politics was piqued by reading about the Man Friday protests at the ponds.

Claims for Adverse Possession in land disputes are undermined if during the 12 years the land owner has made attempts to use or reclaim the land. The Corporation can hardly claim that their policy has been in place without protest or challenge since 2017!

I am now at the point where i am reluctantly starting to think that we have to start summarising these things. For clarity. So in this instance:

City of London confirms that all 3 Hampstead ponds are unisex.

Or in the Fife case: NHS Fife confirm that all changing rooms are unisex.

etc etc

Presumably because, like most of us who’ve been around a while, they know the consultation will be rigged, like last time, and will undoubtedly make no difference to the current policies, which Sex Matters consider to be illegal.

They are hoping for a legal assessment, not a whitewash by men with an agenda.

The consultation is irrelevant & in any case was fiddled last time by removing all the responses that did not believe in GI. Even if their consultation shows a majority in favour of an "inclusive" Ladies pond open to biological women & men with lady feelz that would not be permitted by law.

If wanting single-sex spaces is "transphobic" then I can only reasonably conclude that "transphobic" must be a good thing.

That may well be true, but it's not an argument that would work in the courts. I followed some of the hearing and the timing did just seem really odd - I could see where the City of London was coming from on this point.

I think this is interesting.

A story in the Evening Standard that the City of London Corporation is considering opening the mixed pond all year round. At present it is only open for use by the public from April to October, whereas the women's and men's ponds are open throughout the year.

The reason given is "the growing popularity of open water swimming". But is this just an excuse? Does the Corporation think it's going to lose the court case and will therefore need the mixed sex pond to be available for the same time period as the single sex ponds for those transgender people who refuse to use the facilities appropriate for their sex?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/hampstead-heath-mixed-bathing-pond-b1265662.html

It does seem a bit out of the blue doesn't it. I suppose if they anticipate either losing or climbing down, it does enable them to say trans swimmers can choose a neutral option rather than being forced into their biological space. It will prove to be an empty gesture as we all know trans swimmers will disappear like morning mist if denied entry to the ladeez.

I suspect we're going to need to see many such gestures of good will and accommodation, in the process of proving it wasn't the space or the willingness to accept the belief, it was access to women that was desired.

But fine, if it's used then great, and what isn't used or needed will just quietly be closed and removed again.

Mate.

No one says trans people are not human!

That's just a scare story Genderist ideologues tell trans id-ing or aligning kids and young people to maintain their control of them.

All anyone is saying is that gender identity is not sex - I mean, that's the whole basis of trans identity, right? - so having a trans gender identity does not make you the opposite sex.

All the mess, all the lawsuits, all the protests, all the fear, all the anger, it just all boils down to that simple truth - TRAs are demanding something unreasonable, that because of the gender of their personality, we should for some reason have to pretend they are a different sex in the body, and pretend that the actual sex of their body does not matter.

But it does matter. Pretending it has gone away does not make it go away. And exactly because trans people are just normal humans, their sex matters just as much, or just as little, as everyone else's. There is no one rule for trans people and one rule for everyone else here, there is just the reality of the times sex matters and the time it doesn't.

Eventually, you got to allow the possibility of being wrong about it, even if it may feel like an earth-shattering idea. But once you do, you may get the answer you seek, especially if you actually meet some gender critical people and learn that despite what hate group campaigners tell you, those are actual humans, despite you refusing them basic dignity.

Update: the City of London seeks to delay again (20 April 2026)

Today (ie 20/4/26) is the deadline for the City of London Corporation to file its substantive defence on the lawfulness of its policy of allowing trans-identifying men into the women’s pond and showers on Hampstead Heath.

But a few days ago it made a last-ditch attempt to avoid making substantive legal arguments at all.

It applied to the court for the case to be “stayed” on the basis that its committees will soon reach a final decision on what admission arrangements to adopt following its consultation.

Previously it told the High Court a final decision “will be taken in March 2026”. It now says that timetable “was somewhat optimistic” but it is “confident” that a final decision will be made on 4th June 2026.

Continues at https://sex-matters.org/posts/homepage-carousel/update-the-city-of-london-seeks-to-delay-again/

Stalling legal processes seems to be all that's left.

Maybe they are exhausted by the advanced level of mental gymnastics needed to try and justify their position and need a break.

Or they are finally admitting they have no defence and are giving up but just want to spin it out as long as possible out of spite?

Is everything that doesn't go your way unfairly "rigged"?
If you answer please remember that every time there's a consultation it is posted here for the users to participate in.

Many of us here know the history of this “consultation” stretching back 6 or 7 years, and there are many threads documenting it. Feel free to read them, Bobby.

Is everything that doesn't go your way unfairly "rigged"?

No, that would be a silly claim.

Just the things that are unfairly rigged by people with an extreme agenda and who are prepared to lie and deceive in all available ways to achieve their ideological goal.

Is it an attempt to delay it until after the local elections? If the judgment were to say that trans women could not use the Ladies' Pond, is there a fear it could become an election issue and existing local councillors lose?

They literally said they ignored all the responses that they didn't like.

Given that in the latest consultation almost half of the people who responded said that they were LGBT then it’s very clear that there are issues with the consultation not truly representing the views of the general population.

I know we all know this but a quick reminder that you couldn’t have a consultation that said let’s have a club that only invites men but not black ones. It wouldn’t matter how many times people voted for that to be a thing it still wouldn’t be allowed and it’s the same here.

Dupe post.