Allowing males who identify as female to swim in a women-only pool and undress in front of biological women is unlawful, a campaign group suing a local authority has claimed.
Sex Matters, a charity that campaigns for single-sex rights, will argue that the City of London Corporation is breaching equality law by allowing trans women to use Kenwood Ladies’ Pond on Hampstead Heath.
They will submit their claims to the High Court on Wednesday in a hearing that will decide whether to grant permission for the case to be heard in full.
There are three ponds on the Heath – men’s, mixed, and women’s. At the moment men can use all three, while women – with the greater need for privacy – have nothing for themselves. But the absurd City of London have been insisting that trans women are women, and aren’t about to change unless pressured.
A spokesperson for the City of London Corporation said: “We recognise the sensitivity and complexity of this issue and await the outcome of the permission hearing.
“Like many organisations, we are reviewing our access rules to ensure they remain fair, lawful and respectful in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling and evolving Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance. Our recent public consultation will inform this review, with feedback now being independently analysed and will be published in due course.
“Our priority is to provide a safe and respectful environment for all users.”
Obviously not. Not for women. And this self-justificatory waffle about the “complexity” of the issue….there’s nothing complex about it. It’s absolutely simple and straightforward. Keep man out of women-only spaces. That’s it.
Forgive me @antonioguterres if I believe your horror at the massacre in Sydney – which I survived – is entirely hollow.
For last 2+ years, you have excused, embraced and mainstream Hamas and Islamist terror against Jews and only poured more fuel on the fire of hate. https://t.co/TFs5uSJ4s7
There’s been understandable concern about medical ethics after the Pathways puberty blocker trial was passed as meeting “rigorous scientific and ethics standards”. Giving powerful chemical castration drugs to vulnerable young children, ethical?
But then you look at the stuff that gets published in the Journal of Medical Ethics….
Traditional female genital practices, though long-standing in many cultures, have become the focus of an expansive global campaign against ‘female genital mutilation’ (FGM). In this article, we critically examine the harms produced by the anti-FGM discourse and policies, despite their grounding in human rights and health advocacy. We argue that a ubiquitous ‘standard tale’ obscures the diversity of practices, meanings and experiences among those affected. This discourse, driven by a heavily racialised and ethnocentric framework, has led to unintended but serious consequences: the erosion of trust in healthcare settings, the silencing of dissenting or nuanced community voices, racial profiling and disproportionate legal surveillance of migrant families. Moreover, we highlight a troubling double standard that legitimises comparable genital surgeries in Western contexts while condemning similar procedures in others. We call for more balanced and evidence-based journalism, policy and public discourse—ones that account for cultural complexity and avoid the reductive and stigmatising force of the term ‘mutilation’. A re-evaluation of advocacy strategies is needed to ensure that they do not reproduce the very injustices they aim to challenge.
The anti-FGM campaign is based on “misleading, often racialised, stereotypes.” It’s fine, really, girls getting parts of their genitals surgically removed. It’s all about aesthetic enhancement….
The phrase female genital mutilation is “stigmatising” to certain cultures and should be replaced with a more “inclusive” term, academics have argued in a British Medical Journal publication.
In an article published in the BMJ’s Journal of Medical Ethics, researchers called for the term to be replaced with the phrase “female genital practices” to “account for cultural complexity and avoid the reductive and stigmatising force of the term ‘mutilation’”.
Female genital mutilation (FGM) involves injuring or cutting a female’s genitals, with no medical reason, which can cause severe pain, harm and long-term health problems. It was outlawed in the UK in 1985, and the World Health Organisation has said that 230 million girls and women alive today have undergone FGM.
In the article, academics suggest that criticism of FGM is based on “racialised stereotypes” and “Western sensationalism”.…
Alice Evans, a senior lecturer at King’s College London who specialises in gender and international development, said that the essay was an example of “academia digging its own grave”.
She wrote on X: “I previously lived and did research in West Africa, working for an NGO that tackled female genital cutting. The British Medical Journal has published a ‘puff piece’ promoting [FGM], saying it’s perfectly fine for the community (not the individual) to control her body.
“The article blames western media for causing harm by wanting to tackle [FGM]. Nowhere does it mention that this is intended to reduce pleasure and maintain patriarchal control. Publishing this, academia is really digging its own grave.”
You can only imagine how incredibly, overwhelmingly unsurprised I was to see the words “Ex BBC World correspondent in Gaza” in this person’s bio. pic.twitter.com/EdxjKxyJhq
So the world is taking a deep breath after the Bondi Beach horror, to think seriously about this horrific rise in Jew hatred…..right?
WATCH: Free Palestine supporters angrily try to force their way into a Chanukah celebration in Amsterdam, not even 24 hours after Jews were massacred at a Chanukah celebration in Australia. pic.twitter.com/8GhPiwrPF8
Hours before Jews were attacked at a Chanukah celebration in Sydney 🇦🇺, crowds in London 🇬🇧 were chanting “globalize the intifada”.
These are not abstract slogans. The intifada was a campaign of stabbings, shootings, and bombings targeting Jews in cafés, buses, homes, and… pic.twitter.com/b7sD2QjfXl
“The intifada was a campaign of stabbings, shootings, and bombings targeting Jews in cafés, buses, homes, and religious gatherings.
“When that language is normalized and exported, it doesn’t stay rhetorical. It sets a climate where violence against Jews becomes justified, even celebrated.
“What happened in Sydney is not disconnected from those words. This is what “globalizing the intifada” looks like.”
Mick Hartley 