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/

Including A Watson, allegedly

https://gendercriticalwoman.blog/2022/04/05/labour-party-anthony-watson/

If they don't claim the pools are single sex though, surely they are covered. So they call them single gender instead. It's if they say they are single sex that there's an issue if they carry on as they are.

.

If they’re not single sex, they’re mixed sex.
Trans people can’t legally go into opposite sex spaces where others of the same sex are excluded.

But that's my point, there won't be a single sex women's pool any more. As they will just not call it that.

Then it’s open to all.

What on earth is ‘single gender’ ? Completely undefinable.

They can call the pools “single gender” or “pool A”, “pool B”, etc, but if they do that and admit transwomen into the women’s pool, it would become a mixed-sex pool by definition, regardless of the sign on the gate.

It has to be enforced though. To remove men from the ladies pond as well. We have seen that even when it was the gender id stuff, the men were entering the ladies, yet the women in the men’s were removed by the police.

They were always right fuckers about this. The women there like to be very comfortable and there is a lot of nudity, AND there is a bloody mixed pond. So no one is being excluded. Only people who desperately need to see women naked.

Doesn't the pond belong to us, the women who swim in it? Surely it should be voted on, again, but it might be that this time the vote will be whether we:
a) retain the Ladies Pond
b) change it to a mixed pond, or
c) change it to a feminine-presenting people's pond?

I'd be voting for keeping it as it always was, the Ladies' Pond.

Exactly, there would be no pool for adult human females only. Which would be a shame. But is what may well happen.

They’ve been “men’s pond”, “mixed pond” and ladies pond” for many, many years. So to change their titles suddenly would very much look like a cynical attempt to get around the law

I fully agree, but it doesn't mean it won't happen. I hope not, it's a lovely space when used correctly.

There is a lot of confusion, which is understandable and I'm confused. I've been trying to get my head around it as well. I may be very wrong, but this is how I understand it:

I think what's confusing is people believing the use of 'woman' = female = single sex space now in all circumstances. But following discussions elsewhere, that doesn't seem to be true.

If you explicitly designate a service/space as single sex then you may allow only members of that sex in. You can use the term female or woman, but the important part is the use of the single sex exception under the EA. You can then deny access to the opposite sex. Any gender identity is irrelevant.

Alternatively, a provider can use the term 'woman/man or as Merrymouse says, 'masculine/feminine' or a similar term and have it cover actual women/men, trans people and anyone of either sex essentially.

They are not invoking the single sex exception, because they are not required to by law and they have chosen to remain unisex and 'inclusive'. So it is not a single sex space and they have not claimed that it is, even if their usage of certain words makes people think that it is or should be single sex. They are permitted to do this.

I think the second usage is what Merrymouse is talking about. I also think they'll likely do what murasaki says.

Genuinely cannot see that happening. They are providing a public service and it’s already clear how much the men want to have their men’s pond so if they don’t provide a women’s pond too then they will be guilty of sex discrimination as you can’t provide a pool for men only and not women only too. It would be argued that women are in more need and not less of single sex facilities for swimming.

With the SC judgement women are only those born female in this situation and the men’s pool only for those born male.

I can’t see it taking them long with legal advice to point the the trans women to the third space currently mixed sex. They could make it trans women only or call it what they want but what they cannot do is continue admitting men in the women’s pond or they will find themselves in court and they will lose.

I hope you're right. But I suspect they will just avoid claiming any pool is single sex. And the men will de facto make their pool single sex without it being designated as such by kicking out the transmen.

As a public service provider, at some point they thought it was proportionate to apply the single sex exceptions and create sex specific ponds. It was only relatively recently that gender identity was recognised and then they were advised that under the Equality Act, they had to include trans women in the female pond.

That advice has been clarified to have been unlawful and it will go back to being single sex.

Anywhere where it was considered proportionate to exclude males in the first place such as in prisons, toilets, changing rooms etc then those places must go back to being single sex.

If someone wants to set up a women’s only book club and they’re clear it’s open to all those who identify as female then they can do that but also a woman’s only book club can exist and exclude males too. Lesbians can meet up and exclude males and gay men can meet up and exclude females. It’s more freedoms and not less. And anti discrimination laws can be applied clearly without favour as each group is clearly defined.

The only freedoms lost are for people to have the right to see the opposite sex in a state of undress or be in a space where they may violate the dignity and privacy needed by the opposite sex which was never their right in the first place.

No way will the men give up the single sex mens pond. They have called the police countless times on the man Friday swimmers.
This means by default that there has to be a womens pond for just biological women.
Legally you can't have a mens but not a womens.

But if they did the man Friday protest again then if the police were called and removed the women, it could be used as evidence in court of sex discrimination and that there is no women’s only pond.

They cannot provide a men’s only pond and not a women’s only pond too or they’re guilty of sex discrimination. If the men are happy with three mixed sex ponds then that could happen but I don’t think they are and they want a men’s only pond so they have to provide a women’s only pond too and for the purposes of the Equality Act, woman always mean biological sex.

I looked it up - the Ladies' Pond opened in 1926, the Men's 1893 - but presumably the original pond was men-only for years before that.

The single-sex provision is so well established that it would seem wilfully vindictive and anti-women to do some kind of elaborate dance around the obvious intention of equality laws as re-affirmed by the SC ruling.

Nothing anti-women is ever out of the question, so who knows?

I've never been to the Ladies' Pond, but I've heard that when Hackney was known to have a large lesbian population, the Ladies' Pond was nicknamed 'Hackney-Plage'

Yes. Unless the men are happy to give up the men's pool there has to be a women only pool. The men seem very protective of the men only pool. I can't see 3 mixed sex pools being popular.

It’s slightly depressing that inevitably it will be the men’s desires which push this but the trans women we know will throw their toys out of the pram and I could see three mixed sex spaces being made to avoid the confrontation with them.

However, the men’s desire for their own pond will mean the service provider will have to confront the trans women and tell them they will now need to use either the mixed sex pond or the men’s pond. What they cannot do is allow them to use the women’s pond while simultaneously having a men’s only pond.

https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/24179577.campaigner-losing-hampstead-heath-swimming-pond-trans-ban/

It’s also clear from this that there are people who want it to be single sex and are willing to go to court over it. The reason they were including trans women was because they thought they were complying with the Equality Act. Now that has been clarified for them, they will hopefully comply with the law.

Well if anyone is interested City of London have got on the Website for the ponds they are considering the SC judgment.

I keep coming back to the same thing, unless they make it clear these ponds are mixed, then the assumption has to be they are single sexed.
There are bound to be women, who for whatever reason, have deliberately seeked out a single sex swimming facility or session.
Lots of women would be really upset to find themselves in a pond or shower next to a male (transwoman).
How do you write a risk assessment for mixed facility including the showers and the pond?
How do you defend yourself against a claim for trauma if a woman becomes upset and traumatised at sharing with men?

Surely it becomes false advertising to not have these as single sex spaces If they are going to continue to call them mens / womens ponds.

Oh right, ok.

none of the gay men I know (admittedly somewhat limited the numbers) would not be the slightest bit bothered by women being there and would actually probably welcome it, but I don't know any gay men using those pools.

I can definitely see the second lot.

Seriously? There are lots of men having sex in the Hampstead Heath pools?