Hampstead Pond - Brave woman speaks

[WandaWomblesaurus]

https://twitter.com/roseveniceallan/status/1764345843178512414?s=48

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240302074256/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13146349/How-tranquil-oasis-female-swimmers-line-culture-wars-Bitter-row-trans-women-allowed-bathe-historic-single-sex-pond-comes-ferocious-head.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20240302074256/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13146349/How-tranquil-oasis-female-swimmers-line-culture-wars-Bitter-row-trans-women-allowed-bathe-historic-single-sex-pond-comes-ferocious-head.html

Venice Allan

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

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.

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.

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.

Bliddy hell!

That's appalling!

Didn't some women try this at one time?

And were ejected pretty damn sharpish - police involved etc?

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).

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!)

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?

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?

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.

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.

@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.

@theilltemperedclavecinist you've misinterpreted the Act. As the statutory guidance says:

If a service provider provides single- or separate sex services for women
and men, or provides services differently to women and men, they should
treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present.
However, the Act does permit the service provider to provide a different
service or exclude a person from the service who is proposing to undergo, is
undergoing or who has undergone gender reassignment. This will only be
lawful where the exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

That is, if the service provider choses to do so, they can exclude trans women from the women's pool if it's proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Even if it were in this case, and I seriously doubt it, they have chosen not to, as voted for by their members.

@DadJoke our interpretations are the same. I've acknowledged that excluding TWs is discrimination and that the solution is to avoid discrimination in the first place.

@PriOn1 yes, IW confirmed on Twitter - with much glee - that they had visited the women's pond several times. I think there were screenshots of their tweets on the original Ponds MN thread.

So, you accept that they don't have to exclude trans women, and have chosen not to do so?

Do you think that a group with a protected characteristic (say Christian, Muslim, gay people or people with disabilities) should be able to exclude another group (say Christian, Muslim, gay people or people with disabilities)?

There are plenty of people who are uncomfortable changing with gay people - is the solution a separate changing room for gay people?

A solution in this case would be to have a weekly swim for Orthodox Jews, just as our local pool has swimming times set aside for Muslim women.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1022191/feeling-uncomfortable-around-lgbt-france/

Enabling Orthodox women to swim by ensuring that single sex remains single sex does not put transwmen at any disadvantage compared to other swimmers of either sex. They would have _two pools to choose from. Orthodox women would have only one pool to choose from.

A solution in this case would be to have a weekly swim for Orthodox Jews, just as our local pool has swimming times set aside for Muslim women.

If you think that some women need a special single sex session its because you acknowledge they are being excluded, from a facility that is supposed to be for women.

If a facility is for women and they are in a state of undress, that facility can be single sex.
As there is a single sex facility for men that excludes women, then they are discriminating against women by making the women's pond mixed sex.

Do you think that a group with a protected characteristic (say Christian, Muslim, gay people or people with disabilities) should be able to exclude another group (say Christian, Muslim, gay people or people with disabilities)?

I am not a legal expert, but the answer to your question has to be yes in some instances.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has to be a practising member of the Church of England with years of experience as an Anglican clergyman. At the moment he also has to be male. It's exceedingly unlikely that a gay man, even if celibate, would get this job.

A person who is registered blind is not going to be able to get a job as a commercial pilot.

The reason for excluding transwomen from the women's pond is not because of the protected characteristic of being trans, it's because they are male. There are lots of cases where it's proportionate and sensible for safeguarding reasons to exclude males, no matter what their gender identity.

@DadJoke

So, you accept that they don't have to exclude trans women, and have chosen not to do so?

Yes, of course. And obviously people who share a PC can assemble and exclude others, if there's a LAPA, which there usually is. Excluding gays because you don't like them isn't one, though.

The pond problem is one of competing LAPAs. You could let the Jewish ladies swim once a week. Or you could let the TWs swim once a week - when they would be joined by the women who don't mind mixed sex bathing. (And there's a mixed pond as well, of course).

A lot of the issue here is that institutions include TWs not because they, or users, want to, but because they wrongly believe the law compels them to. Its a mess.

This is about people in France, not in Hampstead

This is what I think, and as far as my understanding goes at the moment; I admit I'm struggling with the finer points e.g. if a man identifying as a woman would/could 'win' in court the right to use a women's pond depending on having or not having a GRC.

Enabling Orthodox women to swim by ensuring that single sex remains single sex does not put transwomen at any disadvantage compared to other swimmers of either sex. They would have two pools to choose from. Orthodox women would have only one pool to choose from.

The TWs would claim they cannot possibly go in the men's pond. I don't think we need to fight them on this ground to win the argument.