Sex Matters - Hampstead Heath Ponds -

So you think so little of transpeople that you presume they would ignore strict boundaries and access places they are banned from and that they know they will cause upset? Wow! And people call us transphobic! And if transmen are so upset or worried by being questioned, they could use the mixes sex pond. That’s what it’s there for.

It must also be awful for police staff who have to investigate crimes like rape or murder, so let's not bother doing that either, hey? Let's just let abusers get away with everything they want to all the time.

You clearly don't see how absurd that argument is:

It might be difficult, on occasion, to do a perfect job of gatekeeping, so... it's actually a better result all round not even to try.

Seriously!?

Because you're sad for the staff, or sad for the men?

The staff, of course! The FEMALE staff.

I've made it clear above that it puts them in an impossible position, having to enforce the necessarily rigid door policy that a strictly single-sex pond would necessitate. (No one has yet given me a good example of how such a policy could be carried out in practice, without sacrificing any women's safety and/or dignity. Someone suggested a male bouncer, but I bet most women don't want to be eyed up by a man assessing their claim to femaleness as they go in. Plus, trans men who wanted to swim in the Ladies' pond might be given an awful time at the gate, which would be, well, awful.)

Yep it’s confusing isn’t it. The DfE have school specific guidance that ask if your toilets going to be unisex or single sex. New schools seem to be the worst. In 2001 the DfE said they wouldn’t allow them for multiple reasons yet here we are. https://schoolsweek.co.uk/ehrc-guidance-causes-trans-toilet-trouble-for-schools/

The typical configuration is toilets in floor to ceiling cubicles both sexes can use with shared sinks. Awful.

Anyway don’t want to derail thread. ( Off to watch Taken 2)

I may bow out now due to wine consumed! I have never bathed in the ponds but if I did I would probably be doing so with my family which would mean the mixed sexed pond. If I was on my own it would be the Ladies. I hope I have the chance in the future - it sounds a unique experience.

To be fair the last time I was in ‘wild’ water I got a sickness bug. I also saw a drowned bloated sheep 😫which did not encourage me.

@Keeptoiletssafe For LEA-supported schools in England, it's Regulation 4 of the School Premises Act 2012, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1943/regulation/4/made

1. Subject to paragraph (3), suitable toilet and washing facilities must be provided for the sole use of pupils.
2. Separate toilet facilities for boys and girls aged 8 years or over must be provided except where the toilet facility is provided in a room that can be secured from the inside and that is intended for use by one pupil at a time.
3. Where separate facilities are provided under paragraph (1) for pupils who are disabled, they may also be used by other pupils, teachers and others employed at the school, and visitors, whether or not they are disabled.
4. Suitable changing accommodation and showers must be provided for pupils aged 11 years or over at the start of the school year who receive physical education.

For the Independent sector you want Regulation 23 of The Education (Independent Schools Standards) Regulations, 2014

1. Subject to sub-paragraph (2), the standard in this paragraph is met if the proprietor ensures that-suitable toilet and washing facilities are provided for the sole use of pupils;
2. separate toilet facilities for boys and girls aged 8 years or over are provided except where the toilet facility is provided in a room that can be secured from the inside and that is intended for use by one pupil at a time; and
3. suitable changing accommodation and showers are provided for pupils aged 11 years or over at the start of the school year who receive physical education.

It's the DfE guidance document, Advice on Standards for School Premises, last updated March 2015, where we can see sloppy thinking & language from the DfE fostering confusion & error;

General planning
Toilet facilities need to be planned and designed so that:

1. hand washing facilities are provided within or in the immediate vicinity of every toilet;
2. the rooms containing them are adequately ventilated and lit;
3. they are located in areas around the school that provide easy access for pupils and allow for informal supervision by staff, without compromising pupils’ privacy.

Where there is unisex provision, the privacy of the occupant needs to be ensured and this will be achieved by, for example, having adequate enclosure and a full height door.

On devolved arrangements I'm as puzzled as you.
Many apologies if any of this constitutes an egg-sucking lesson!

ETA, In case anyone was wondering, the Secretary of State for Education in March 2015 was Nicky Morgan.

Agree option 1 is better but there is exclusion - every person is excluded from at least 1 out of 3 ponds. If it’s option 2 I would argue the most vulnerable people are excluded from all. I am applying exclusion as meaning exclusion per pond.

@Keeptoiletssafe In your option 1 everyone is included. They can swim in their biological sex ponds or in the mixed pond if they prefer. There is no exclusion in option 1.

It would be interesting to see it if is. The ponds could have to be relabelled mixed sex though the renamed womens and mens (call them something neutral like the West pond and the North pond for example) and could just say that traditionally this was the men’s or women’s. They would be no evasion as it would be clear they are all mixed sex and any toilet facilities and changing facilities were changed to be compatible. As it is in England, to fulfil building regs any refurbishment of toilets in the area would mean they have to be single sex (lol) and only unisex after they have fulfilled the requirements for these. So single sex toilets for all the mixed sex ponds.

I am basing this as an option on something I know more about. 25% of secondary schools have no single sex toilet provision though there’s sometimes an understanding that girls use one block and boys the other, though not enforceable. The DfE has allowed schools to have all unisex/mixed sex toilets. I have asked various organisations whether this is illegal but not got an answer. Is it illegal if new schools were built like this (they have been) or just if girls and boys used to have single sex toilets then they were changed to mixed sex? I believe it should be illegal btw for toilets because it’s detrimental to girls and medically vulnerable children. It’s frustrating that schools aren’t included in the 1992 legislation or Document T. That’s why they are probably in the most trouble.

Back to the ponds - of course Option 1 is more inclusive. More people in total still have access to at least one pond.

I used to agree with this, but in the course of these discussions I became aware of two things and no longer believe it, except for single toilet facilities (like disabled ones). Those are:

The sheer number of women who are disadvantaged by the knowledge that a male bodied person could be sharing a place where they feel vulnerable. I believe this group vastly outnumber that of men who want to present as women. They had their rights first and those rights should not be being removed by a new group of very assertive males.

The sheer number of older transitioners who are autogynophiles. Men who want to live as women because it gives them sexual satisfaction to live as women. Those male bodied people should in no way be in a women's changing room.

Is it your normal stance to bow down to bullying men?

It's women being brought up that way which has got us to the current situation with these entitled men who want to force their presence on puerile who don't want them there.

The answer to the problem you describe is to put some hefty bouncers on duty until the entitled bullies get the message.

I'm one of the tall broad shouldered flat chested androgenous hipped short haired women who has always been mistaken for male as well, so please don't come back with that one. It's never been a problem for me to reassure my fellow women who need me to that I'm female.

So it's just terrorism, then.

No, not at all. But I don't like the thought of the Ladies' pond gate staff (who are very nice in my experience) having to stop them.

Because you're sad for the staff, or sad for the men?

My hope would be that if the ponds were open to all, a lot of that violence and aggression would evaporate. So much of it comes from resentment at being shut out of a place where people (wrongly) believe they belong.

I'm resentful at the Bank of England for not transferring me a couple of million quid. How aggressive and violent do I need to be so that you're sad and hope the BoE indulges me?

Aaahh gotcha. So it’s all women’s fault that men are aggressive and nasty. Those pesky women saying no and refusing to allow the men in. I don’t think the TRA have thought this through though. If men with a trans identity are afraid if sharing spaces with males, how does making all the ponds mixed sex work? They’d be sharing the ponds with the very men they claim to be soooooo scared of.

I don't actually think the current legal situation works post-SC judgment (of course it didn't work before it, either). I think leisure facilities and associations should be allowed to set their own admittance policies in relation to sex/gender... they should be allowed to be single-sex only but they should also be allowed to admit by gender identity if they want to, and are clear about it.

(Totally different situation to e.g. prisons where women only really has to mean women only, because women have no choice as to whether they go to prison or not, whereas they do have a choice about whether they join the WI or swim in the women's pool.)

Yes I think this is true. I don't honestly believe they'll ever go fully mixed. They'll probably just keep fishing around for loopholes to keep the status quo

No, not at all. But I don't like the thought of the Ladies' pond gate staff (who are very nice in my experience) having to stop them.

My hope would be that if the ponds were open to all, a lot of that violence and aggression would evaporate. So much of it comes from resentment at being shut out of a place where people (wrongly) believe they belong.

It was awful that the police were called during the Man Friday protests. That's exactly the kind of situation I'd like to avoid, forever.

Oh, give over. I'm 1.85m tall, utterly unfeminine & have been routinely mistaken for, & challenged as, male since I was a kid. It is reaslily resolved, completely undramatic & no more than banal, as any woman like me could tell you.

Women like me don't need your acquired-in-the-last-5-minutes "concern" for us that is no more than a spinelessly reflexive deference to men.

One of the points of the SC ruling is that it's illegal and discriminatory to have something labelled as single sex which is in fact mixed sex. This is deception, bluntly, which will discriminate. So you can't have a pond labelled 'woman's' which includes men.

Of course people who are fairly keen on discriminating against women like to muddy the waters by claiming 'woman' can include men. So it's helpful the Supreme Court has clarified in law that isn't the case.

Nevertheless you still have misogynist judges like Kemp trying to very clearly break the law as he did in his piss poor incompetent judgement. However, the rule of law in a democracy doesn't really work if it's illogical and incoherent - the only way to enforce as big a lie as some men can be women is by moving towards totalitarianism and making people lie and kowtow through fear. Which isn't a country anyone except a tiny, tiny minority (the ones currently in charge obviously as well as the blokes overriding women's consent in the ladies) wants to live in.

Your Option 2 is illegal and has no defensible basis in law - there is no legitimate process by which it is possible to 'choose' to evade the relevant provisions of the Equality Act.

The only way to come to a consensus is to have a proper survey done with clearer language, explaining the 2 options available and who they will exclude. All groups concerned can check that they are happy with the wording. That will be the tricky part!

Both these options below, I think, comply with the law. The advantage of surveying it this way is you only have to tick a box. Perhaps people could come along to a polling station nearby to the ponds to give greater weight to locals.

Option 1. Keep the names and the ponds are for women only, then mixed and then men only, as the current names state. The facilities stay as they were intended to be years ago. Men (however they identify) aren’t allowed in the pond for women, women (however they identify) aren’t allowed in the pond for men. The survey should state that this option leads to the exclusion of people who want to go in the pond where it is expected that the majority of users are of the opposite sex for comfort.

Option 2. Rename the ponds. Provide a clear description of who is allowed in each pond in different languages so all visitors are aware of changes. All ponds are mixed sex. The renamed women’s pond is for women and men who would prefer to bathe with women. The mixed stays the same. The renamed men’s is for men and women who would prefer to bathe with men.
The survey should state that this option 2 leads to the exclusion of women with trauma of men, people of certain religious faiths, and people who only want to bathe with people of the same sex for comfort. With this option the facilities in 2 ponds may have to change to reflect that everything needs to conform to a mixed sex design (I do not know the current configuration so this is speculative). Mixed sex designs are never as good for health and safety as single sex designs. They are less safe for the medically vulnerable, women and children.

If it’s option 2 it will be interesting to see how it changes usage - will the sexes keep themselves largely separate once they have official permission to mix. Based on my toilet research, I would predict a few groups of young males will go into the renamed women’s, specifically targeting this pond to show off laddish behaviour and intimidate young women. There may be more lone males in the renamed women’s around the changing areas (depending on the current configuration) who now have ‘permission’ to be there. In contrast, I think the renamed men’s will stay mostly men, and the mixed stay mixed though less numbers as many of the unattached men will be in the women’s.

For comparison, in some uk secondary schools, I know children have been known to try and divide the mixed sex toilets up into male and female sides such is the natural distain for them when only presented with mixed sex toilets. With mixed sex toilets there are problems with hygiene and misuse so supervision needs to be increased for health and safety. Some girls avoid going to the mixed sex toilets (because of hygiene issues and misuse including voyeurism) and in a few cases miss school when there’s not the option to avoid needing the toilet. This last bit is a worldwide problem. In fact, many aid charities such as UNICEF and PLAN build separate female toilets as they find that’s the easiest and only way for girls to get an education.

Option 1 is the easiest and only way to include all women and girls getting access to the ponds - by one of the ponds being single sex.

If you state the 2 options clearly for people to vote on, people can choose which demographic(s) to exclude. In voting, you are voting for exclusion either way.

However it's about time organisations like Morrisons are held liable for lying to the public and causing harm (Morrisons allowed the 6ft5 Dolatowski into their 'womens' toilets to attack a child, which she very well might not have used, or used with her Dad if it was accurately labelled 'mixed sex').

This is so true.

Pretend places are single sex is more dangerous. Guards are down, expectations are skewed and safeguarding relaxed accordingly. Just label the three ponds mixed sex as they are.

In what way would you say the world has changed?

I'd say that sex still exists. Humans still come in two sexes, male and female. Males still have a greater propensity to fetishes and paraphilias, including voyeurism and cross dressing; women are still vulnerable to male sexual propensities which can negatively impact upon their inclusion and enjoyment in public spaces.

All that has changed is that lots of people now seem to think female dignity, privacy and confort doesn't matter as much as permitting men access to their reserved and protected spaces if they demand it.

Melarus

So, you are proposing that the serial rapists, "Karen" White and "Isla" Bryson should be allowed to swan in to the womens' pond, then.