A robust and consistent approach
The Guardian reports a policy change:
Transgender women have had their right to use Hampstead Heath ponds formalised in a new policy.
The City of London Corporation (CoLC), which manages Hampstead Heath and its ponds, announced that it had adopted a new gender identity policy to make sure services in the area “are fully compliant with the Equality Act 2010, and do not discriminate against trans people”.
In January, the City of London, confirmed that the ladies’ pond – which counts people such as the actor Helena Bonham Carter and novelist Esther Freud among its swimmers – was open to transgender women. That was formalised in an announcement on Thursday that the new rules would “ensure a robust and consistent approach to gender identity”.
But what is “gender identity”? And why does the City of London need to have a robust and consistent approach to it? And, most to the point, what about the other rights? Why is the supposed right of transgender women to use the ladies’ pond more important than the right of women to use it? Why is it bad to discriminate against trans people but fine to discriminate against women? What is the point of having a pond for women and then ruling that men can use it too while bragging about rights?
Edward Lord, the chair of the establishment committee, which leads on the CoLC’s workforce and inclusion policies, said: “All communities should be fully respected, and equality and basic human rights upheld.”
Except those of women.
I could see it if the City of London had decided that sex segregation at the Hampstead ponds was an anachronism and a bad idea in light of moves to segregate Muslim women at university events and the like, but that’s not what this is. This is keeping the sex segregation but saying a particular subset of men have the “right” to creep on women while pretending it’s a matter of respect and equality and basic human rights.
A statement on the CoLC website said the new approach would “minimise potential issues of exclusion and discrimination”.
Will it? How can they know that? How can they know there won’t be women who wonder how anyone one will know that all the trans women are genuinely trans women, with not a single opportunistic dude among them?
The announcement comes after a consultation on attitudes to gender identity held last year received nearly 40,000 responses, of which 21,191 were deemed valid. CoLC said 65% of those valid respondents favoured ensuring trans people did not suffer discrimination.
In other words they threw out nearly half the responses in advance. Well that’s one way to get the desired result.
It only gets worse. Every day another click of the ratchet. Yet at the same time, more and more people are crying foul. Will this just keep going? The more people object, the more they double down?
Maybe they figure by the time resistance becomes fully organized the accumulated concessions to TRAs will constitute a fait accompli and it will be too late to turn back the clock? No takebacks. Pinky swear. Cross their heart.
I would be fascinated to understand how they determined that ~47% of responses were invalid. As a (former) scientist, I was always very cautious about throwing away data, you had to have a very valid reason for doing so, even if it was inconvenient. I think I might have tossed maybe 0.05-0.1% of my data set over an 8 year period.
I was wondering the same, Rob. My best guess would be along the lines of a single, multiple-choice question simply asking whether the respondent favoured ensuring trans people did not suffer discrimination, Choices were A. Yes. B. No. C. Don’t know/No opinion. Any response of ‘B’ was invalid.
It should be noted that there are changing rooms and showers at the pond.
latsot, you’re not suggesting…..no, you can’t be…..can you?
Of course not. It’s just plain nuts to suggest that some men might pretend to be a woman to see women naked and/or attack them.
It’s not as though there’s a rich history of creepy behaviour such as male landlords putting cameras in their tenants’ houses or hoteliers putting cameras in rooms. It’s not as though men have often used fairly elaborate scams to gain access to places where women are particularly vulnerable. It’s not as though having no remotely reliable way for women or attendants to tell who ‘should’ and ‘shouldn’t’ be in certain spaces will lead to women having to shut up and accept the potential threat.
No… it’s not anything like that at all.
Tennessee is trying to make it illegal to flash one’s genitals in restrooms and dressing areas such as described here. Trans activists are objecting to the bill.
https://womenarehuman.com/transgender-activists-protest-law-banning-flashing-of-genitalia-in-restrooms-locker-rooms-change-rooms/
So, 65% of the 53% whose responses were deemed acceptable–don’t ask upon what basis–agreed that trans people shouldn’t suffer discrimination.
Which would probably be fine. If there was any clear standard of ‘real’ trans status. How much protection does ‘Karen White’ deserve? and how many legitimately trans women are supposed to huddle under the same umbrella with him?
Meaning, it is now open to anyone willing to say “I am a woman.”
Saying that sex segregation is discriminatory logically leads to the position that nothing should ever be segregated for either sex. If keeping trans women out of this space is discriminatory against them, then it is also discriminatory against those men that don’t call themselves women.
I wonder what the criteria were for throwing them out. Insufficient genuflection to the TRA altar before expressing their disagreement? Calling trans women men? Talk about a worthless protocol…
A thought occurred to me regarding the ~18,000 votes being thrown out thing. Of those thrown out, I wonder if any at all were votes supporting trans inclusion there…?