Skip to Content Subscribe Our Offers My Account Manage My Subscriptions FAQ Newsletters Canada Canadian True Crime Canadian Politics Health World Israel & Middle East Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Comics NP News Quiz New York Times Crossword Horoscopes Life Eating & Drinking Style Sponsored Play for Ontario Travel Travel Canada Travel USA Travel International Cruises Travel Essentials Culture Books Celebrity Movies Music Theatre Television Business Essentials Advice Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Buy Canadian Home Living Outdoor Living Kitchen & Dining Tech Style & Beauty Personal Care Entertainment & Hobbies Gift Guide Travel Guide Amazon Prime Day Deals Savings National Post Store More Sports Hockey Baseball Basketball Football Soccer Golf Tennis Driving Vehicle Research Reviews News Gear Guide Obituaries Place an Obituary Place an In Memoriam Classifieds Place an Ad Celebrations Working Business Ads Archives Healthing Epaper Manage Print Subscription Profile Settings My Subscriptions Saved Articles My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ Newsletters Canada World Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Life Shopping Epaper Manage Print Subscription HomeNP CommentAmy Hamm: Court letting 'fetish gear' in woman's changeroom conflates sex, genderEdmonton judge won't force Alberta Human Rights Commission to hear caseLast updated 12 hours ago You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.The Edmonton Law Courts building. Photo By David BloomThe city of Edmonton has successfully quashed a judicial review of the Alberta Human Rights Commission’s (AHRC) refusal to hear a complaint about women’s sex-based rights. The city was also awarded $625 in costs for their successful application against the woman seeking the review. Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountorThe city’s application was heard at the Court of King’s Bench Alberta on June 10.The case centred around academic Kathleen Lowrey, who, along with her 14-year-old daughter, encountered a male in overt sexual fetish gear using the female change room at the Bonnie Doon Leisure Centre in February 2025. Lowrey argued that the facility’s policy, which allows males who self-identify as women to enter the women’s-only areas, compromises the privacy, dignity, and safety of all females. This newsletter from NP Comment tackles the topics you care about. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays)By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againFrom her original complaint, filed in May 2025: “Perhaps not all men who claim a female gender identity are sexually motivated, but saying any man who claims a female gender identity can come in to women’s changing rooms, the City has invited in sexually motivated men like him. It is a direct threat to women and girls for the city to say I have to see his penis and his fetish gear, let him look at me and my girl child if we change, and if we feel frightened our only alternative is to just stop using the facility. This denies us a public service on the basis of our female sex.” In an affidavit filed with her application for judicial review, Lowrey described entering the Bonnie Doon female change room with her daughter only to find “a bald man wearing only a black thong outlining his penis and a pair of artificial rubber breasts slung around his neck.” Lowrey wrote that she wound up calling police after the leisure centre staff told her that the person in the thong was perfectly entitled to be in the women’s area, fetish gear and all. Lowrey filed a complaint with the AHRC in May 2025, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex. The AHRC rejected both her original complaint, in July 2025, and then her request for an appeal of that rejection, in November 2025. They asserted that Lowrey had not demonstrated that she had been discriminated against. She then filed for a judicial review, hoping to force the AHRC to hear her case. Then came the city of Edmonton. The city had Lowrey’s application for a judicial review thrown out on the basis that Lowrey did not name the city as a respondent. In an application filed to the courts, they argued that the city is “the entity directly affected by and implicated in the underlying human rights complaint.” The city also argued that Lowrey is now outside of the six-month filing period for a judicial review, meaning that she will not be able to re-file, even with the city named as a respondent. The entire case is dead. Lowrey, who is not a lawyer and is self-represented, filed her application against the AHRC alone. She argued that she merely wanted her original complaint to be heard. In a written statement she prepared for the application hearing, and provided to the Post, she argued that “the relief (she is) seeking in (her) originating application is not from Bonnie Doon Leisure Centre and/or the City of Edmonton. It is simply for the AHRC to hear (her) arguments.” Lawyers from the city and the AHRC appeared in court together. None of the hearing was meant to be in regard to the merits of Lowrey’s original human rights complaint. Nevertheless, the city’s lawyer, Megan Kyriacou, snidely referred to the changeroom incident as “Ms. Lowrey encounter(ing) a transgendered individual” that was “in accordance with the city of Edmonton’s inclusive changeroom policy.” She also referred to the discrimination complaint as being based on “gender.” The conflation of sex — a fixed biological reality — with gender is why we are in this absurd situation to begin with. Sex is definable, distinct, and a protected characteristic in Canada’s charter. “Gender,” whatever that happens to mean to whoever utters the word, is not. The AHRC similarly conflated “sex” and “gender” in dismissing Lowrey’s complaint. But here’s the bottom line: we women are entitled to sex-based protections in this country. Lowrey’s case has been tossed out on a legal technicality. There will be more cases — because there are thousands of Canadian women who’ve had enough of being forced to share their intimate spaces with males. Our institutions cannot keep waving their magic “bigot” wand to make every concerned woman disappear. The next woman who comes forward with a similar complaint will not lose on the same technicality. Lowrey provided a statement to the Post after her court loss: “It keeps going against women in legal case after legal case. It is an accumulating record of smug institutional disregard for women and girls in Canada, and everywhere we attempt to contest policies put in place by gender activists. But we are learning from each kick in the teeth, and we are not giving up,” said Lowrey. No, we certainly are not. National Post Join the Conversation This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.