Hampstead Ponds update today

[WallaceinAnderland]

I'm not sure that this is in line with the law.

They need to label all 3 ponds as mixed sex.

https://news.cityoflondon.gov.uk/hampstead-heaths-bathing-ponds-to-remain-trans-inclusive-spaces-as-city-corporation-agrees-future-access-policy/

Tbh, I don't think that much has changed. One committee approved the policy on 12th May and forwarded it to a different committee who approved it on 4th June.
SM have articles in Times and Telegraph basically saying 'see you in court'. It's been useful though; another opportunity to air the arguments in front of the public

Can't see anything on BBC, but I did find this interesting article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjrpr3y15jdo

Yes, it makes it very clear we are talking about female people.

Also it includes women and girls who say they are non-binary or some variation of that. These women and girls are also overwhelmingly young, vulnerable and autistic and/or same sex attracted. Their physical and mental welfare is also a huge concern for feminists.

@BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth great one for your thread I think

If they do turn all 3 ponds into mixed sex make sure to use the former men's pond by default. The gay men will absolutely hate that and might shake them out of their stupour when it affects them.

Yes, and I would darn well file it under Overseas

Indeed. So for the 1000th time, will a TRA please explain why trans-identified males won't use the mixed sex pond.
The fact that the offer of 3rd/4th/mixed sex spaces is always ignored makes it crystal clear in my view that these men want access to women.

I've just seen the reference to those 'billionaires' again.
Well, I have to say that the f*ckers still haven't sent me any money at all. And I'm proper terfy and everything. Is there an application form I've missed?????
🤣

Gender is social expectations of how a man or woman should behave.

You can't 'have' the social expectations of society.

You can identify with social expectations, but many (most?) people don't.

I've said it before but the CoLC are basically offering a men's pond for the gay men, a women's pond for the womanly men and a mixed pond for the straight men. The 'gay men's pond' is common knowledge in N London. I agree that the G will drop the T the moment the G pond is threatened.

Mods are coming down hard on Kasi

That is enlightening!

So what was the relevance of the comment in the GLP case then?

Was he just saying that he wasn't confident enough to say that there couldn't be a situation where there was no detriment?

But they don't include all trans people.

My take was that it was a bit petty when there is a mixed pond already. Also a bit pointless having the labels really. Saying all the ponds are mixed seems more honest and decent. The vast majority of people don't care about mixed bathing but the few people that do, will be the ones who are upset by this. I feel a bit sorry for them.

he's been (temporarily, maybe?) banned because I reported his derailing posts and also the post with him bragging about derailing : " I can do this all day, it's fun :) "

Im not sure about the comments in GLP, but they were a fairly throwaway obiter line. I think Al Hijra is distinguishable in questions about toilets as socialization is not a purpose there. Hard to maintain the argument that a man prevented from entering female toilet is disadvantaged by not being in the presence of his women friends. But being sociable with your friends is a legitimate purpose for a leisure venue like a pool.

Exactly. One of the claims was that the EHRC’s interim guidance was wrong/ unlawful when it said if trans women were allowed in the women’s toilets but other men were not that this would be direct discrimination against men who do not have the pc of GR.

Swift J included this paragraph (which ends by reminding everyone at the back that in this case the “female” badged toilet would of course be mixed sex) saying that this point could potentially be argued depending on the context but nevertheless the EHRC’s guidance was not unlawful on this point.

I haven’t got the judgment in front of me so please excuse the layman’s language but I hope I’ve got the legal point correct

Agree, it's extremely petty.

Also, it really isn't "a victory for tolerance and decency" if some women are now excluded due to the presence of males, such as women from different religions and cultures, women with disabilities, women who just want some fucking privacy in a women-only space.

I mean the point that there will always be a detriment to men without the pc of GR. Nevertheless the EHRC’s guidance was likely to be correct and thus not unlawful (I think!)

#sadtimes

Yeah me too. Where's my terf money?

But would the provision of the mixed pond be an argument that he could socialise with his female friends?

Is it sufficient to say that he has less ability to mix with his female friends?

Akua Reindorf on X:

In the GLP case the judge speculated that it might not be direct discrim if equivalent provision was made for the men. But as my old head of chambers would say, that's an argument which I think is susceptible to better advocacy

I don't think the "if you want to do that, you're free to do it somewhere else" argument flies.

"If you want to get a coffee, go to McDonalds, they serve Irish people."

"If you don't want to be called 'doll' and told to make the coffee for the men to whom you're senior, you're free to get a job somewhere else."

"Women are not allowed in the restaurant, but they can use the terrace outside."

None of these work.

61. Whether different treatment is also less favourable treatment is, therefore, a qualitative question. In a case where the provision of separate lavatories labelled male and female was materially similar in terms of the extent of the provision, location, and so on, I consider there would, in principle, be scope for a strong argument that a rule or practice that permitted trans women to use the “female” lavatory but required other biological men to use the male lavatory would comprise different but not less favourable treatment on grounds of sex. However, the circumstances of the case would be decisive. (For the purposes of the EA 2010 the lavatory would be mixed-sex, but for the purposes of the Claimants’ submission in this case it would still be labelled “women”.)

I was corrected on another thread when I called this 'unfortunate musings by the judge' because it was skim-read and seized upon and I wished he hadn't said it. It seems he was responding to a specific point so it was just pointless what-if-ery!

there would, in principle, be scope for a strong argument -
what would your old head of chambers make of that, HenriettaSwanLeavitt?
English for 'yeah ok you can argue that but don't expect me to agree with it'😄