Hampstead Ponds update today

Does this mean you think Swift J was wrong to say that, whilst such arrangements may constitute illegal direct sex-discrimination against men, whether or not they actually do will depend on the facts of the case (because it depends on whether they are treated less favourably overall thereby)?

I don't think he was wrong - in each case the complainant still has to show the discrimination. But I don't think that's a heavy burden, in the case of a single sex pool. I think I explained above how the reasoning in al-Hijra applies.

Here are some excerpts from that Court of Appeal judgment:

48 ... It was submitted [by Ofsted] that the point can be put on the basis of a comparator, namely (in the case of discrimination against a girl pupil) a boy pupil who can mix with other boy pupils, and (in the case of discrimination against a boy pupil) a girl pupil who can mix with other girl pupils, or it can be advanced without any comparator by simply asking what would have been the position if the girl pupil or the boy pupil did not have the protected characteristic of their sex. It is said that, either way, there is discrimination contrary to any one or all of EA 2010 s. 85(2)(a)(b)(d) and (f). Viewed from the perspective of an individual pupil, in that way, both the girl pupil and the boy pupil are treated less favourably than the other.

47. We agree with those submissions of Ofsted

56. Furthermore, we do not accept the School’s argument that, whether looked at from an individual or group perspective, separate but equal treatment by reason of gender cannot be unlawful discrimination even if it is detrimental. The way Mr Oldham put it in the course of his submission was there cannot be unlawful discrimination if both the complainant and the comparator suffer the same detriment even if they would have been treated differently if they were a different sex. The following cases support the rejection of that argument, as does the general principle that the discrimination legislation should be given a wide and purposive interpretation rather than a narrow one:

I could go on.

Al-Hijra really hung on the school being co-ed but separate, though. It was basically two single-sex schools on one site (ETA: from description, I haven't seen a floor plan!) There are loads of single-sex schools, no deprivation of 'socialisation' with the opposite sex as that is not a reasonable expectation of a single-sex school. Al-Hijra lost because it called itself co-ed.

Or, they realise it’s important for men to have a single sex space and a mixed sex space ie the women’s pond, they can swim in all year round, and they didn’t consider women at all.

Edited for clarity

The Ponds came up on the Nicky Campbell show today, in a discussion about the Public Sector Equality Duty.

Fantastic comments from a caller called Rebecca 👏🏻

The caller after her though 🤦🏻‍♀️

From about 45 minutes in:

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002xg9v?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

Well done Rebecca! Of course Hampstead know no one actually likes this - that’s why they are having to spend a lot of money making everything private.

Just listened to Rebecca. If you’re here on mn, you’re my today’s heroine! You gave your arguments clearly, factually and relayed it to the main debate of the day. Didn’t listen to much of the following caller, but she was a bit hysterical, wasn’t she Loved how Rebecca responded to her calmly and factually. Team Rebecca!

The caller after Rebecca - Sophie - was quite excited! Sophie spoke a great deal and was quite forceful - saying simply EDI = "don't be jerk". Whilst simultaneously sounding like a jerk!

Yes, Rebecca was amazing. I especially liked her point about how you could not imagine an organisation doing a public consultation on whether to comply with the law for any other protected characteristic.

Sophie had a right go at the caller that was on after her as well 🤣

@KnottyAuty ha ha I agree with your comments on Sophie. I was not persuaded by her lack of logic or a lazy argument based on … what. Im not sure.

Thanks for the link @Itscoolforcats

Sophie’s “ just don’t be a jerk” - is actually very apt in light of what Rebecca said about the women who would have to self -exclude from the [so called] “ladies” pond so that male “ladies” can use it - though not in the way Sophie thinks.

The comments on DEI were also interesting. Sophie saying that noone should be upset if they don't get a job and shouldn't question why because it was all on the best person for the job. Then got very heated when talking about how they couldn't get a job because there was no help for them - instead of thinking it might be a problem about their skills?! TBH it all seemed a bit too close to home - weird circular autistic arguments that never make sense and never end. Welcome to my world!

Rebecca was excellent- a model of calm clarity.

Not sure if this is the most recent thread about the Women's Pond but interesting article by Sex Matters looking back to the start of a pond being set aside for women, through to more recent historical events. Such as "a group of intrepid Mumsnetters calling themself “Man Friday” donned fake beards"!

Full article here https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/the-battle-for-hampstead-ladies-pond/

(Is it the Ladies Pond? I always thought it was the Women's Pond but maybe given the year is was set up they did use the word "Ladies".)

Haven’t read the whole article yet as I need to start work, but I am interested to read that the problems started in 2017 and there was obviously a genuine outcry about it, which was quickly stifled by false claims about the EA2010 and by Lord et al creating a false front about women’s bigotry. It’s encapsulated transactivism in a nutshell.

Fascinating anyway. Will read the rest later.

The Man Friday campaign was one of the first pushbacks to break through to mainstream media. Hannah Clarke and Amy Desir, along with other very brave and creative women, identified as men on Fridays and went swimming, amongst other things.

Trans led group seeks permission to intervene in decision to allow trans people to use Hampstead Heath men’s and ladies’ bathing ponds

The trans led advocacy organisation TransLucent is seeking permission to intervene in a judicial review being brought against the City of London Corporation (CLC) over its decision to keep Hampstead Heath bathing ponds in north London trans-inclusive.

https://www.leighday.co.uk/news/press-releases/2026-news/trans-group-seeks-to-intervene-in-decision-to-allow-trans-people-to-use-hampstead-heath-ponds/

Sad to see Leigh Day taking this on.

Pumpy Stephen sticking his big, male nose in where it’s not wanted again, I see.

It's a good thing. The courts should hear from anyone who has a (legal) point they want to put forward, and then decide according to the law.

Nose?

Agree, but I'm interested to understand how relevant their intervention would be.

I can understand why an interest group would need to make the argument that a swimming facility should be single sex (It's quite unusual for a swimming pool to be single sex all the time), and I can understand that some people believe that associations should be free to choose how they organise because of freedom of association rights.

However, I can't understand how a service can meet the criteria for excluding men, but include any man who wants to use the service. On what grounds would they be excluding people? It was clear that the 'Man Friday' was organised as a protest, but what if one just turned up? Would the decision be vibes based?

Anyway, I think it can only be a good thing for people to make arguments in public.

#letthemspeak

I agree that someone should be allowed to state their case.

I stand by my opinion that a lot of the hurt to women, but also to those who consider themselves to be a trans woman or trans man, would have been avoided if the law had been clarified years before the Supreme Court judgment. That lack of action years ago I blame mainly on Liz Truss (who favoured self ID at one point) and Boris Johnson (who treats women like dirt as his private life confirms).

Of those born male who will be excluded from the Ladies Pond assuming the law is upheld, many of them probably would have never gone there to begin with had the law been confirmed say in the latter part of the last decade.

Having just read the link above I am not sure that they will be given permission to intervene since the hearing is about the FWS SCR and the lawfulness of the situation with the ponds.

Translucent are talking about feeling of a minority group, which is not that relevant.

Yes. From the link

"Our application includes heartfelt testimony from trans people who use the single-gender bathing ponds regularly and find them to be a place of acceptance and tranquillity that clearly means a great deal to them.
"We are seeking permission to intervene to provide the court with this perspective directly from trans people, both as swimmers who use the ponds and as users of other public facilities where similar issues may arise."

Yes, it's not clear what any of this has to do with the application of the law.

Ellie Fawcett, solicitor at Leigh Day said:
“Too often, issues impacting trans people are debated without hearing from the people most affected. This application is about making sure those voices are before the court. The evidence filed on behalf of TransLucent shows that the Hampstead ponds are more than a place to swim; they are a place of community, belonging and wellbeing.

And the legal point here is...?