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 have to rename the pond if they want to keep allowing men.
That will likely involve the Privy Council.

I'll buy shares in the popcorn company.

That's what I was thinking. There are places where the effect of the Supreme Court decision seems to apply quite obviously, but there's a range of other places where it may be more at the discretion of the management. There's likely to be plenty more money put into lawyers' pockets before this all gets resolved.

FWIW

ANYBODY telling you they still have the choice about including
"transwomen / trans women / trans-women"
in a women's service

IS BREAKING THE LAW

They won't, it's got the best diving board. They won't want any brilliant lady divers showing them up.

The judgment is clear what agencies are covered by mandatory and who isn't, but makes the point that not following this may leave an agency open to legal action for discrimination against women.

There's a council involved in this, so public responsibilities. And we all know how much we were told that any group of over 25 people had to do what the Equality Act said when it was being interpreted to men's favour. The ponds might have had a shot at getting away with it then, but they won't now.

Private / Public / Charity
irrelevant

"womens" / "female" / "ladies"
excludes those born male

backdated to 2010

the end

Also, if they end up with three ponds which are mens, mixed, and "women and trans women", then they could also be sued for indirect sex discrimination as a result of providing a single sex service for men but not women.

Obviously, whether an organisation is public or private doesn’t make a difference to the definition of “woman”, but I think the fact that councils, etc are subject to the Public Sector Equality Duty does potentially make a difference to how they handle the SC ruling, as the additional obligations placed on them make it much harder for them to shy away from the issues.

Would they not say the men’s includes transmen so is also mixed sex in the same way the women’s pond is? (Excluding the fact that they kicked out Man Friday)

I suppose they could, but they'd have to do a consultation on that wouldn't they, as it would be changing from what is currently a single sex provision to mixed? And I think they'd probably listen to the men that don't want women there, given their reaction to Man Friday.

I hate religion being brought into these things like Muslim and Jews have superior moral standards to Christian women, Sikhs, Buddist or atheist.

Every woman has a right to respect, privacy and dignity regardless of faith.

They cannot include TW and exclude men in the ladies pond, because that is sex discrimination against non trans identified males.

Single sex means single sex. It's not 'managers discretion'.

They aren't obliged to have any single sex ponds but as a pp said, if they have one for men they're open to legal challenge from women as they are discriminating against women by not also offering them single sex space.

They need to stop dithering.

It’s not about ‘superior morals’- more the constraints they may be under because of their religion, I’d have thought.

I also think places that advertise themselves as single sex but aren't could be leaving themselves open to false advertising.
Luring women in under false pretences.

Then i wouldn't like to be trying to defend their risk assessment in the event of a sexual assault.

I know why people do it, because Muslim women cover their hair their beliefs are more noticeable.

But really it doesn't mean other women and girls regardless or religion, or how revealing their clothes, are actually happy to be getting changed in front of men or sharing spaces.

This.

Management can make a decision only within the constraints of the law. Which gives them a choice of fully mixed sex, open to everyone; or single sex, provided it falls within the permitted single-sex exceptions. They can't pick and choose these men but not those men. All or none.

And the law uses the ordinary meaning of words unless specifically otherwise stated. Woman, female, lady, lass, damsel, whatever - you can't provide a service that illegally discriminates by using a synonym.

We need to see the guidelines PDQ. No void, no hiatus where various TRA agendas can sneak in until challenged. It will also make life easier for the decision makers if they have something concrete in the guidelines to rely on for refusal of TW in female SSSs. I think....

We're already seeing the 'get ahead of the law' behaviour causing 'get ahead of the guidelines' releases probably in the hope of controlling and confusing the narrative. However the judgment is clearly written and publicly available and nonsense can now be easily stripped out. The first thing really to do is ditch all the DEI advisors and employees currently in post as compromised past repair. These policies and guidelines shouldn't be implemented by activists.

Sadly the most helpful thing will probably be just as you say, that they have to chose between which of two groups of men to upset.

Either the men have to lose their single sex pool - and they will not appreciate it - or the men with trans identities have to accept they have the option of two pools and the women's is out of bounds. It's one or the other.

I suspect the men with the single sex pool will swing it. People listen when men say no.

Honestly, it is absolutely nonsensical that trans women were ever allowed in the ladies pond when there is already an inclusive third space they can use.

Hope they get taken to court by the end of the month if they do not comply.

The Equality Act doesn't permit that because "anyone who identifies as a woman" isn't a protected category.

The best course of action for them would be to convert the mixed sex pond into a LGBTQ+ friendly pond and implement a zero tolerance policy for any kind of transphobia or homophobia.

Ah but I think there are rules in the Equality Act about providing single sex spaces for one sex and not the other. Basically I think you might get away with providing women's and mixed (on the grounds that women have more need for spaces away from men) but you'd be on very dodgy ground with men and mixed, even more so with men and two mixed.

Sounds like a plan!

Unfortunately it is not what TiM want. They need validation by women that they are women and therefore they enjoy trying to prove that, or intimidate in order to prove that, as the case may be.

That was before the judgment though.