Hampstead Heath Ladies Pond - considering the SC judgement

[QuetzalTerfLus]

Apparently the CoLC is considering its position

https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/25109343.equality-ruling-affect-hampstead-heath-swimming-pond/

They can consider all they like.
If the Kenwood "Ladies" pond admits males
its breaking EA2010 s.11
backdated to 2010

we have their policy stored in screenshots

From the article:

The ruling means that transgender women with a certificate can be excluded from single sex spaces such as toilets, changing rooms, single-sex hospital wards and women's refuges "if proportionate".

Except that’s not what the ruling said at all - it said that there’s no need to have to separately justify excluding transwomen if you've justified excluding men, as transwomen are automatically excluded from a single-sex women’s space by definition.

Furthermore, transwomen will always be excluded from a women’s single sex space as they’re not the same sex as women.

This explanation feels like perhaps it was taken from the same briefing note as whatever the BBC used (see the BBC thread) before they amended their article, as the wording looks almost identical.

About time.

There's a mixed pool too

The ruling isn’t really up for consideration, it’s perfectly clear what their obligations are.
Idiots.

The thing is, any organisation that has, in the recent past, explained quite clearly why women (regardless of how they’ve defined ‘women’) need a space separate from men will find it difficult to state now that they’re fine with that inclusive “women’s” space now becoming a mixed space that admits all males too.

Organisations have loudly parroted Stonewall on how TW can’t be housed with the horrid men and how women need to be kind and move over to let TW join us. So on what basis can they possibly argue that actually, all men should be in our spaces too and that all spaces should now be mixed? If that’s what they wanted, why did they keep going on about how threatening men are to TW and how TW need separate spaces from men?

It's interesting that this misinterpretation of the ruling seems to being spread. I put in a complaint to the BBC for stating the same thing (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkx78zlm4po ) they've since removed it and added a correction. You'd think people/places would stop taking information without checking! That's how we've got to this point anyway!

I'm not sure about this. There are going to be areas where single-sex facilities have to be provided, like toilets and changing rooms in work situations. But when it applies to users or customers, it may be that the management can make the rules. So if the City of London says the Ladies' Pond is open to anyone who declares that they're a woman, they might be able to get away with it. There are undoubtedly going to be more court cases where the limits will get defined, in light of the Supreme Court decision.

But when it applies to users or customers, it may be that the management can make the rules.

There was nothing like that in the Supreme Court ruling. Where did you get it from?

The ruling was clear: if you provide single-sex spaces, they have to be single-sex.

Do you remember how foul the CoLC were about the results of their consultation on users a few years ago? That was for me one of the main peaking moments. Women who gave comments were dismissed in their thousands. It's also strongly reinforced my belief that a male gay mafia exists in the City.

My understanding is that yes, of course an organisation can decide to include TW, but if they do so: the space becomes mixed sex by definition, and so other men can’t be excluded on the basis of their sex.

I do think they would be free to convert a women’s space into a mixed sec space in many circumstances (not schools or employers, as these are covered by additional legislation requiring single-sex facilities), but if they do that, they would likely be challenged on the basis they have previously argued how important it was to have a separate space for “women” (however they’ve defined it) where men can’t go.

Obviously, there would be plenty of other grounds to challenge an organisation converting a women’s space to a mixed one, but I think it will be particularly difficult for the orgs who’ve made high profile arguments that TWAW and that “women” need their own space away from men.

2 mixed ponds and 1 men only pond will be very hard to explain. I'm looking forward to seeing what happens next.

I reckon what they may try to do is make it very clear they are mixed sex (ie ‘trans inclusive’) but still call them men’s and ladies. And hope that mem who know they are men still avoid the ladies.

Which of course doesn’t provide a single sex one but may still be legal. But would be very interesting if they try to keep the status quo, because a single sex one for men would appear not to be justifiable if they choose not to use the single sex exemption for the ladies.

That is incorrect..

They called it the Ladies Pool.

That meant men were not allowed only transwomen. Now it's been settled that transwomen are men they are stuck with it being a single sex space.

It will end up as two mixed sex and one men.

But is "ladies'" the same as "women's"? I guess then ends up being the question?

What’s not clear to me is whether the pond (and the gym changing room that’s labelled “female”) are allowed to say - we are inclusive, this changing room (pond) etc is for both woman and transwomen. Virgin active’s policy has been that trans woman can use the female changing rooms.

No. If they try going down that road it will end up as three mixed sex. If they provide a single sex space for men, they have to provide one for women. Sex not gender. If they can't or won't do that for women, they can't do it for men

More likely 3 mixed ponds. But there are many religious Muslim and Jewish women who like the single sex space.

And some men, as was seen re the man Friday protest.

They don’t need to ‘carefully consider’ their position.
They need to comply with the law.
It’d be nice if they’d also issue a humble apology to the women they’ve discriminated against over the years, but that’s probably too much to hope for.

Are there also Muslim and Jewish men who like a single sex space?

Muslim and Jewish women don’t seem to elicit the same sympathy as TW. CoL don’t have that sort of “inclusion” in mind it seems.

As Longines said, they haven't understood the ruling. We're seeing the last clutching on to fragments of Stonewall law. No, women no longer have to plead on their knees to try and justify saying no to a man in a specific situation and case and convince that they have enough reason (clue: nothing is ever enough reason to say no to a man). If it's single sex - then the fact a single sex provision was made at all was for a proportionate reason or it would have been mixed sex.
In which case no male is entitled to use it, and if exceptions are made then it's a mixed sex space all men can use.

It is currently mixed sex, just under a bit of deception that no longer works with the clarified law. Men have 3 options. Some women have none at all. It will have to go back to one for women, one for men, mixed one for anyone to use.

The men will certainly not want to lose their single-sex pond, so maybe they'll feel it's worth throwing a bone to the women in order to keep it.