Hampstead Pond - Brave woman speaks

@MarkWithaC left it too late to edit, but yes I agree with you. The LAPA of letting the Jewish lady swim is achieved by putting the TW to the only slight disadvantage, relative to cis people/people of the opposite legal sex, of only having one pond to choose from.

But in any case it's unconscionable for institutions to have to wade through all these complications and maybe get sued, and vulnerable individuals shouldn't need to sue them.

So, relative disadvantage is assessed one protected characteristic at a time. Say, are men disadvantaged relative to women, directly or indirectly?

The TW v Jewish lady face-off is more like competing LAPAs. Because they have lots of different PCs.

I HRTFT, so apologies if this has already been mentioned:

There is a lovely documentary on Netflix called The Ponds about the three swimming ponds at Hampstead Heath and the people who swim in them. A lovely watch, apart from about 5 very politicised minutes shoe-horned into the second half, partly about the Me Too movement (perhaps happening contemporaneous to filming?) and a few women featured saying that they had absolutely no problem with transwomen swimming in the women's pond... no-one else featured saying anything to the contrary. The documentary is dated 2018.

Worth a watch, but those few minutes almost spoilt it for me.

assessed as relative disadvantage, not non-identical outcomes). Excluding him from the ladies' pond is direct GR discrimination.

What does 'relative disadvantage' refer to? Because if it's the disadvantage to the man identifying as a woman (disadvantage being he would need to go in the men's or mixed pond, but all other things being equal (so no religious reasons etc) he can) versus the disadvantage to the woman of faith (disadvantage being that she would need to go in the mixed or men's pond, but obviously she can't) then surely the woman's disadvantage should be seen to be greater?

Thank you very much for going to all the trouble of explaining g.

Re:
“He [transwoman without a GRC legal male]can however claim indirectdiscrimination on the basis that he doesn't have a single sex pond to swim in like the other men (GR discrimination) or like the women (sex discrimination).”

In the case of lavatories or changing rooms I am sure I’ve seen people on here say that for transwomen without GRCs the comparator is other men. So they can use the ‘Men’s’ if they don’t want to use a mixed sex one. There was no ruling to say it was indirect discrimination because they did not have a single sex one of their own. Without a GRC as legal men they have option of the single sex male lavatory/changing room.

Couldn’t the same principle apply to the swimming ponds?

The existence of the single sex ponds is a derogation from the Act - permitted sex discrimination for the purpose of a legitimate and proportionate aim ('LAPA' - usually about safety, decency and/or fairness).

A transwoman with male legal sex (no GRC), if excluded from the ladies' pond, cannot claim sex discrimination because of the derogation, and cannot claim discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment because he's treated the same as the other men. He can however claim indirect discrimination on the basis that he doesn't have a single sex pond to swim in like the other men (GR discrimination) or like the women (sex discrimination).

A TW with a GRC has female legal sex for discrimination purposes (assessed as relative disadvantage, not non-identical outcomes). Excluding him from the ladies' pond is direct GR discrimination.

So they get you coming and going. Stonewall build on this by teaching that excluding TWs is always illegal discrimination, that it could only become legal if there is a LAPA (the LAPA exception applies to all forms of discrimination) but that this virtually never arises (the bar is too high).

They never ever suggest that the answer would be to avoid disadvantaging TWs in the first place (eg provide a TW's pond). And they ignore indirect discrimination against Jewish women who no longer have anywhere to swim at all (because TWs remain men for real life purposes). Obviously, letting Jewish women swim would be a LAPA, but they are outranked by TWs in Stonewall-Land. I suppose they should get their own pond. 😡

I apologise for the above being so long (and not guaranteed to be correct). I have been trying to work out what single clarifying amendment to the Act would cut this Gordian knot, but it's hard. Because the Act is trying to do something that goes against all logic, create a space that's single sex and mixed sex simultaneously.

(You could - not unreasonably - point out that if excluding men fulfils a LAPA, then that LAPA can only be fully met by excluding all men, including TWs, who are men. But that's fighting talk!)

I agree. I have read somewhere that IW uses the pond. I have no proof of that either way, but it’s easy to imagine, having watched the Big Brother clips, that some men would not be looking for validation, but would use such an occasion for domination, even if there was no obvious bullying occurring.

And yes, ManFriday did indeed go into the men’s pond before, and did a great job of publicizing the situation. However they openly explained their purpose to the men inside, after which they were removed.

That isn’t what is being suggested now. Women who claim to be men and are persistent in their claim could not reasonably be evicted without it being obvious that men and women are being treated differently.

I imagine a woman in a T-shirt and trunks would make the men present feel both uncomfortable and pissed off. When they complain, the City of London would have to make the difficult decision as to whether it’s worth pissing the users of the men’s pond off in order to allow other men to use the women’s pond. At the moment, it’s only women that are being “inconvenienced” (for want of a better word).

Didn't some women try this at one time?

And were ejected pretty damn sharpish - police involved etc?

Bliddy hell!

That's appalling!

Women facilitating men's actions isn't quite the same. Which is what these women voting to let men in are doing.

In situations like that, the woman is complicit.

Multiculturalist beliefs such as modesty in the presence of the opposite sex are seen as regressive sexism, whereas genderfeelz beliefs are seen as progressive liberalism.

I often think of that time when wondering how so-called ‘progressives’, who are intent on ending single sex spaces can square that with their valorisation of multiculturalism.

That part is also easy: talk to them for a few minutes, and you discover that the 'multiculturalism' rightthink, in which they'll fret performatively to you about are their children in a school that's too white and middle class, and witter about the richness of the local shops and markets, is as shallow as fuck. If it comes to those women's cultures and faiths getting in the way of men's desires, those multicultural progressive lefties will very rapidly start coming out with stuff that makes Alf Garnet look chilled.

It's an identity. It's virtue signalling noise. There's no real values beneath it.

Unfortunately the 'validation' thing is a very fig leafed, sanitised and/or naive explanation for the drive to be with non consenting women.

There is a male pond at Hampstead and a mixed one so the solution seems fairly obvious: the mixed pond is gender neutral. Why is it so urgent for some of these people to be in women’s spaces anyway?
It is clear that much of the time – and this has even been said about prisons – trans women want to be in female environments to validate their sense of identity.
Suzanne Moore Telegraph
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2024/03/05/transgender-men-women-hampstead-ponds-women-safety/
Also available at https://archive.ph/a2DXs

I think the language is unhelpfully combative and probably won't gain much support from the other side or the unconvinced. I don't think rape is "inevitable" - a fairer point would be that it is vastly, vastly more likely. But, as someone said above, that is hardly the only reason to oppose male presence.

I was just coming on to say that whilst I don’t swim
in the pond many of my friends do as orthodox Jewish women and enjoyed it greatly as one of the few ladies only outdoor ponds . Yes they won’t come any more - dozens of them

Thank you for answering. No doubt you are right, not that I understand it.

I was thinking that those men (transwomen) allowed to swim in the ladies’ pond who do not have
GRCs, have therefore not changed their ‘legal’ sex for all purposes, therefore they are men. So ordinary men, as a sex class, would be discriminated against if they are not allowed in the ladies’ pond too.

Venice on Julia Hartley Brewer today
2.50 in

https://m.youtube.com/live/S_08F8q_qzA?si=5yQw8NVOwE6azCUV

It sounds like, as usual, the whole thing was stage managed and stacked to ensure that men got what they wanted and women were fucked over.

This should go to court. And yes, in the meantime, massed invasion of women into the men's pool. That's where all the safe, decent men will be.

@PriOn1 someone on there was suggesting that the best way forward now would be a wave of women claiming to be men and insisting on using the men’s pool.
I love this idea.

And wards, toilets and football teams whilst we're at it?!
Agree it would be brave women required though.

This looks like quite a straightforward clash of rights to me.

And the EA has provision for this in its Exceptions.

'Khalida Khan of the An-Nisa Society added: “An-Nisa Society from the 80’s fought for the right of women for single-sex facilities and we are appalled that we are now regressing. One of our campaigns was for women-only swimming sessions. Muslim women were not accessing swimming classes, and as we know, lack of exercise leads to poorer health outcomes. We, with the support of our local sports centre started women-only swimming classes, giving access to women to swimming for the first time. The Centre was so supportive that they even used to put bin bags on the large windows for each session!
“Now, not only are we seeing single-sex facilities being erased, those that are left are being opened up to those who self-identify as women. Many women are afraid and appalled at this development.”'

'Under halacha, no one can change their gender, and so trans women would not be considered women.
While Jewish law permits Strictly Orthodox Jewish women to be in a state of undress in front of other women, it is forbidden in front of men.'

And word here on 'Let Women Swim' campaign, which Muslim women were also part of:

https://5pillarsuk.com/2022/09/01/campaign-launched-to-reclaim-women-only-swimming-pond-from-transwomen/

They didn't go entirely quietly:

https://www.thejc.com/news/strictly-orthodox-women-to-take-action-against-opening-hampstead-heath-ladies-pond-to-transgender-swimmers-jooc0kji

https://www.timesofisrael.com/orthodox-jews-protest-opening-of-women-only-london-pond-to-trans-swimmers/

These articles talk about a judicial review. I wonder if that is still in the works?