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/

I was a bit puzzled to learn that transwomen are more at risk in women's spaces than women are

Another reason for them to stay out, then. We wouldn't want them to be unsafe.

@PerkyBlinder Regarding the ponds, they must be male single sex, female single sex, and a mixed sex pond. Or they can choose to have all three mixed. Anything else would be sex discrimination.

One additional factor is that while the mens' and ladies' ponds stay open all year round at the moment, the mixed pond closes in winter. The authorities are probably weighing up whether, if they make the other two strictly single -sex, they'll have to keep the mixed pond open year round at extra cost so as to avoid accusations of discrimination. (You may think the accusations would be ill-founded, but presumably they want to be in a position where accusations can't even be made)

The last time that there was a thread on this subject, @DadJokeexplained why TIMs couldn't possibly be excluded from the Ladies Pond. I cannot remember his arguments but would be very grateful if he returned to remind us.

Good point, I've not seen him around recently....

Definitely a consideration for them @zaxxon Given the EHRC guidance makes it clear that trans people are expected to be included in their sex category without it necessarily amounting to discrimination and that third spaces are to be supplied when possible.

This is obviously just complete speculation but I would imagine it would depend on the actual cost and the number of transpeople using the mixed sex provision. If a lot and they can’t afford it then would all three pools close over the winter so as to avoid the discrimination claim? Or would it be seen as proportionate to keep the pools open for everyone as two single sex spaces just in the winter rather than close all three if cost means all three can’t be kept open? One for them to decide. Still can’t let the men into the female single sex space though 🥳

Oh, and I wondered if Belcher would say anything about the maternity rights of transmen. Belcher did not.

(Sorry, it's a bit of a derail from the Ladies Pond. But Belcher has the same attitude, how dare we stop someone who has been Living As A Woman for 20 years from continuing to intrude. Even if it was only allowed in the first place through people obfuscating the law and the protections that it was supposed to give to women.)

@AmaryllisNightAndDay
You've just about got me roaring at my phone.
Did he miss the part that Isla Bryson wangled there way on to a Beauty Course that's normally single sex???
He made the girls (mainly 16 & 17 yos) feel uncomfortable there. And that was while he was on parole, innocent until proven guilty, the college didn't know. The lecturers eventually threw him off the course, but he had young girls practicing massages and tanning on him, and vice versa.

It's more than just being a rapist getting into a female prison or wearing pink leggings to show off his tackle.

@Needspaceforlego Yeah, it wasn't good for my blood pressure! Belcher has a whole alternative reality. The good thing about that interview is that they're all old tired arguments we've heard before and women have patiently gathered the factual evidence that contradicts Belcher's wild assertions.

I think that you summarize the the theoretical options perfectly, but the next question is "what OBLIGATIONS do service providers have?"

I think that in terms of bars and cinemas and theatres etc it is absolutely clear that women are indirectly discriminated against if single sex toilets are not provided, and the only get out is if the venue is tiny and a couple of single unisex (single sex in use) cubicles with basins / bins etc directly off a corridor is acceptable. In addition certain women (victims of SA, religious) may have additional grounds to legally object over and above simply their sex. I think one aspect of this that might be interesting is just how far case law determines service providers are obligated.

Back to the ponds. In a circumstance where historically men and women have had separate ponds it seems fairly clear that the service provider is acting in a very petty way to say "we want men's and women's ponds, but only if they are mixed sex - we are taking away women only provision as a result of this ruling." I can't see a judge looking kindly on such pettiness. When you throw in the fact that there is a third mixed sex pond already there for all who want mixed sex, then I think it becomes a slam dunk for women.

These two letters have appeared in the Camden New Journal, one of the local papers to the Ponds. The first one, mentions “the new law”, something I’m seeing and hearing casually stated a lot. I thought you vipers would be interested.

Thanks for posting that, Davros. I really hope women get our pond back.

These men insisting they are no threat to us...

Entering women's spaces means violating women's boundaries. I consider that threatening behaviour in and of itself.

Your first act is a transgression, why should I assume you'll stop at just one boundary? Why should I excuse you, or assume you're a good/safe person, in spite your actions?

Personally, I don't care who you are, how you're dressed or what you've done to your body. My concerns are for women's safety not men's feelings. All I see is a man where he shouldn't be and I consider that man a threat. It's that simple for me.

Thanks for sharing, @Davros!

From the letter:

I plead for some common sense for those of us who have been through the transition.

Why aren’t you focussing on the mindless few calling themselves non-binary men who dress as women but who have no intentions to transition?

My response to that is:

Why aren’t you (i.e. trans people who’ve been through the surgeries) focussing on the non-binary and other activists, whose campaigning to accept women with penises brought us to a situation last year whereby it was ruled by the courts that men with fully functioning penises can be granted a GRC?

It’s neither women’s nor the SC’s fault that no-one can differentiate between different groups of trans people to decide who the ‘genuine’ ones are anymore - since it’s all based on inner feelings and a declaration of intention, no-one can know what anyone is really thinking, and it’s those activists who pushed the line that “a woman is anyone who says so” that removed the distinction between them and yourself that you’re now insisting should be reinstated.

That second letter is a cracker. Well done that woman.

Yes, agreed.

And I’m so glad they balanced both sides of the argument.

"Ruling threatens my very existence"

Sheesh. Transactivism - never knowingly underplayed.

Article on the beeb. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj68pk40z74o

Excellent second letter.

Not legal here and sorry this will be long, but while hoping I’m wrong on this- I predict this will take a legal case to sort out.

From what I read here: there’s KPLA, a captured volunteer user group with no decision making power but who are a mouthpiece for mixed sex swimming in the Ladies Pond. plus the Corporation of London which is powerful and legally decisive- and also captured.

The Corporation of London could make all three ponds mixed which would be perfectly legal and fit with their politics thus far. Note the reported quote saying; ‘ oh staff say it’s all fine and it’s actually been mixed sex for years in the Ladies’ Pond ’ I’d say that’s been very tactically given.

So to secure public facilities as single sex (or create any new single sex spaces) needs a big iconic legal case. Why should any service providers otherwise keep or create anything as single sex, when they will get blasted for doing so by extreme trans activists and everyday misogynists? Not to mention putting women and families off from their facilities entirely if they fear that protestors will start being there doing piss protests and whatever.

Seems like the next thing to fight is stopping public spaces becoming mixed sex or gender neutral only. Stopping the Supreme Court decision being used against us. Opposing mixed sex can not rely on showing that an existing service has been single sex for years. That will be undercut by opponents saying yeah yeah it was mixed sex for years with no problem. You just didn’t realise etc.

GC women and men need to articulate the case that unisex individual spaces and communal mixed sex spaces are both a risk and a cultural disbenefit to women in a way that single sex communal spaces are not. Because of the sexist culture of the UK.

Single sex communal spaces offer advantages and freedoms to women of association with each other because of the absence of men that single individual provision or missed sex communal provision does not. That goes for anything from swimming pools and toilets, to schools I would say.

All women need this option but also especially for example lesbians, whose right to meet without men has been suppressed for decades, plus women with any kind of vulnerability or additional need, including cultural or religious need, neurodiversity or traumatic life history. Any worman who just wants a space away from mainstream culture which includes men, in which to relax. You don’t have to have any specific’ ‘reason’ for that. That should be enough reason in itself. But loads of people will absolutely violently hate that idea.

That simple argument which advocates for benefits for women of talking freely to each other without men, will be read as extremely threatening by some men and women. Just watch. There are men that hate women talking on Mumsnet for example. Massive red flag but we know those type of men are easily found, and in all walks of life. So we need to make the argument for single sex spaces as a unique and essential benefit to women louder and louder right now.
And, that will mean supporting and creating some men-only spaces too. Which involves its own complexities for women. It’s not straightforward because of sexism being so pervasive.

So I do think this issue will need a court case to scare service providers with financial losses if they simply obliterate female single sex provision. That is an unacceptable response to the Supreme Court’s excellent decision. I hope some brave female and male swimmers will take on the court case here because with the iconic history of these Ponds it could be the precedent. Misogyny never goes away, it just takes on new forms.

The first letter is from someone who has had surgery. Most of those born male and whose gender identity is female have not had the surgery concerned. I cannot recall the figure.

It seems obvious to me, that if they attempt to go down the “gender-identity/masculine/feminine ponds idea, then there are a couple of ways forward.

The clearest to me, would be to restart the ManFriday campaign, but without doing it openly as a publicity stunt, as they did before.

The reason the ponds could give at present, for chucking them out, was that they admitted they were only identifying as men for the day. They went in and explained why they were there, which was reasonable at the time as they were trying to gain publicity and support.

If the ponds become mixed sex, it will be illegal for anyone to be removed. If a group of women claim they are masculine/have male gender identity and simply go in to the men’s space on a regular basis, It wouldn’t surprise me if single sex provisions were quickly reinstated. After all, one thing that is louder than a tiny group of men shouting to be let in where they want is a much larger group of men saying they want their single sex space back.

In the unlikely event that the ponds then continue to admit men to the women’s pond, women would have the perfect discrimination case. Men have a single sex pond and women don’t.

I know, in theory the ManFridays could bring a case, but I think it might be undermined by the argument that it was obvious they weren’t really identifying as men, but by their own admission, were performing a stunt.

If a group of women claim they are masculine/have male gender identity and simply go in to the men’s space on a regular basis, It wouldn’t surprise me if single sex provisions were quickly reinstated.

Have come to the same conclusion.

And that’s something to bear in mind as voices keep telling us how awful this all is for “the poor, quiet genuine transitioners who just want to get on with their lives”. When the shit goes down, there are quite a lot of those “genuine transitioners” who are ready to shill for all the rest.

In the ultimate irony, Stephen Whittle recently made a post about “those of us who were quietly getting on with our lives” or some such nonsense. Whittle, one of the most successful under-the-radar transactivists of all time is both conspicuously transitioned as well as capable of telling extreme lies when it suits.

I would believe much more in the 'quiet, genuine' group if any TQ group ever, had spoken up about the appalling treatment and behaviour of women and said 'that's unacceptable'.
'not in our name'.
'they do not speak for us'.
'women should not be treated in this way, gay people should be free to be homosexual'.

It has never happened. Not once. Not one single group.

It’s very sad that all these quiet genuine trans people didn’t notice all the quiet genuine women raising concerns about policy.

Are women’s voices just too quiet to hear?

I've seen it from a few individuals. But no - never a group or organised campaign.

@CurrentHun, I agree.

I think single-sex options are important for swimming especially because men almost always find some way of encroaching on women’s personal space or interfering with their swim to prioritise their own needs in that environment, especially in open water swimming where some people are fiercely training for triathlons, etc and some just want to swim for leisure.

Hopefully City of London Corp will do the right thing now anyway, especially as they’re subject to the Public Sector Equality Duty too. They will have to review their Equality Impact Assessment in light of the correct interpretation of ‘women’, and I think people will hold them to account now. They’ve always maintained they were just following the (Stonewall) law, so we’ll see if they continue to follow the correct law now.

But if they refuse to, then Hampstead ponds is a perfect test case, as they already have a mixed provision to accommodate trans people who won’t/can’t use the single-sex ponds. They have the perfect setup to be able to change their policy very simply without having to dig a whole new pond. It’s so very easy for them to comply already.