Still no pond for women

Written by

Ophelia Benson

in

Jolyon Maugham gloating that for now men can continue to force themselves on women at the women’s pond on Hampstead Heath.

https://twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/2016843975772999845

The High Court just refused Sex Matters’ permission to ban trans women from the Hampstead ponds. We’re relieved that the ponds can remain a place where trans people have always belonged.

Notice that he resorts to the usual lie. Sex Matters is not seeking to “ban trans women from the Hampstead ponds”. Sex Matters is seeking to ban men from the women’s pond. Note that if they succeed the men’s pond will still be there and trans women aka men will still be able to splash about in it.

Comments

6 responses to “Still no pond for women”

  1. Sumi Avatar
    Sumi

    So despite the Supreme Court decision, Hampstead Heath continues to have three mixed-sex bathing ponds, only one of which is correctly labeled. At what point does ignoring the court’s decision become a constitutional crisis?

  2. Ophelia Benson Avatar
    Ophelia Benson

    When it’s not women being cheated.

  3. Sumi Avatar
    Sumi

    According to the BBC, Mrs Justice Lieven dismissed Sex Matter’s request for judicial review saying that the County Court was the appropriate forum rather than the High Court. So a jurisdictional ruling, not one on the merits. Presumably, Sex Matters will refile in the County Court.

  4. guest Avatar
    guest

    @1 it’s two mixed-sex ponds and one men-only pond. Men vociferously objected when women swam in the men’s pond, and the women were removed by police. Should I have the opportunity, I plan to go swim in the men’s pond…I mean, what can they say? I identify as a man, so it’s fine.

  5. Mostly Cloudy Avatar
    Mostly Cloudy

    This is ridiculous.

    Can’t the Hampstead Heath park owners compromise by having one pond solely for natal women, one solely for natal men, and one pond for the people identifying as trans/non-binary/ genderqueer ?

  6. guest Avatar
    guest

    @5 it was a perfect test case, as that’s exactly what the original arrangements were. But that was obviously not acceptable to the TIMs who need to be ‘validated’. I really hope there’s enough will and funding to take this to the supreme court. (The ‘park owners’ btw is the City of London.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts