> 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.
> Six options were considered for the Kenwood Ladies, Highgate Men’s and Hampstead mixed ponds, with 86% of respondents supporting the existing trans-inclusive access arrangements.
> A similar proportion also opposed introducing strict single-sex access, while 90% rejected requiring trans swimmers to use separate changing rooms or have separate swimming sessions, and 66% opposed making all ponds mixed sex.
Transphobia is the unpopular opinion. TERFs can go fuck themselves.
This was just the permission stage – the court didn’t really consider the merits of their case. They failed both on timing and on standing.
On timing, this policy was put in place years ago. They are way out of time to bring a judicial review of it. The City of London had *started* reviewing that policy (after legal threats from the anti-trans groups), but hadn’t reached a conclusion. SM’s argument that the City of London shouldn’t be allowed to review their policy but just do whatever SM wants didn’t hold up. If they want to bring a judicial review they have to wait until the City of London comes up with a new policy – not merely decides to review an existing one (or even decides not to change it).
They also lost on standing. The court pointed out that this is really a discrimination case under the Equality Act (arguing direct and indirect sex discrimination). Which isn’t the same thing as a judicial review. If anti-trans activists want to challenge this in court they should bring an actual discrimination claim against City of London; i.e. they need to find an actual person who has been discriminated against by the City of London and actually suffered some loss as a result.
I don’t know if they plan to appeal this. Or if they’ll try to find someone willing to front a proper claim.
But I’m sure this won’t stop them trying to make the people they hate’s lives more miserable.
ACompletelyLostCause on
There needs to be away to push back against these groups that are constantly trying to use the legal system to push transphobia.
I’ve seen several attempts by ‘local’ groups that are astonishly well funed in that they can afford unlimited solicitor’s time, and expensive solicitors at that. They can turn up in expensive slogan teeshirts and literally pay the costs of legal reviews of everything.
Our local library has had to back down from any inclusive activities involving transpeople because a local group (who were proud they never used the library) were going to bankrupt the whole library service with endless legal challanges, to ‘protect the children’.
HogswatchHam on
Good. Gender lunatics funded by American evangelical lunatics have had far too much reach already
4 commenti
> 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.
> Six options were considered for the Kenwood Ladies, Highgate Men’s and Hampstead mixed ponds, with 86% of respondents supporting the existing trans-inclusive access arrangements.
> A similar proportion also opposed introducing strict single-sex access, while 90% rejected requiring trans swimmers to use separate changing rooms or have separate swimming sessions, and 66% opposed making all ponds mixed sex.
Transphobia is the unpopular opinion. TERFs can go fuck themselves.
For those curious, you can read the judgment [here](https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/sex-matters-v-the-mayor-and-commonalty-and-citizens-of-the-city-of-london/) (pdf) or [here](https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2026/149.html) (html).
This was just the permission stage – the court didn’t really consider the merits of their case. They failed both on timing and on standing.
On timing, this policy was put in place years ago. They are way out of time to bring a judicial review of it. The City of London had *started* reviewing that policy (after legal threats from the anti-trans groups), but hadn’t reached a conclusion. SM’s argument that the City of London shouldn’t be allowed to review their policy but just do whatever SM wants didn’t hold up. If they want to bring a judicial review they have to wait until the City of London comes up with a new policy – not merely decides to review an existing one (or even decides not to change it).
They also lost on standing. The court pointed out that this is really a discrimination case under the Equality Act (arguing direct and indirect sex discrimination). Which isn’t the same thing as a judicial review. If anti-trans activists want to challenge this in court they should bring an actual discrimination claim against City of London; i.e. they need to find an actual person who has been discriminated against by the City of London and actually suffered some loss as a result.
I don’t know if they plan to appeal this. Or if they’ll try to find someone willing to front a proper claim.
But I’m sure this won’t stop them trying to make the people they hate’s lives more miserable.
There needs to be away to push back against these groups that are constantly trying to use the legal system to push transphobia.
I’ve seen several attempts by ‘local’ groups that are astonishly well funed in that they can afford unlimited solicitor’s time, and expensive solicitors at that. They can turn up in expensive slogan teeshirts and literally pay the costs of legal reviews of everything.
Our local library has had to back down from any inclusive activities involving transpeople because a local group (who were proud they never used the library) were going to bankrupt the whole library service with endless legal challanges, to ‘protect the children’.
Good. Gender lunatics funded by American evangelical lunatics have had far too much reach already