The only way to come to a consensus is to have a proper survey done with clearer language, explaining the 2 options available and who they will exclude. All groups concerned can check that they are happy with the wording. That will be the tricky part!
Both these options below, I think, comply with the law. The advantage of surveying it this way is you only have to tick a box. Perhaps people could come along to a polling station nearby to the ponds to give greater weight to locals.
Option 1. Keep the names and the ponds are for women only, then mixed and then men only, as the current names state. The facilities stay as they were intended to be years ago. Men (however they identify) aren’t allowed in the pond for women, women (however they identify) aren’t allowed in the pond for men. The survey should state that this option leads to the exclusion of people who want to go in the pond where it is expected that the majority of users are of the opposite sex for comfort.
Option 2. Rename the ponds. Provide a clear description of who is allowed in each pond in different languages so all visitors are aware of changes. All ponds are mixed sex. The renamed women’s pond is for women and men who would prefer to bathe with women. The mixed stays the same. The renamed men’s is for men and women who would prefer to bathe with men.
The survey should state that this option 2 leads to the exclusion of women with trauma of men, people of certain religious faiths, and people who only want to bathe with people of the same sex for comfort. With this option the facilities in 2 ponds may have to change to reflect that everything needs to conform to a mixed sex design (I do not know the current configuration so this is speculative). Mixed sex designs are never as good for health and safety as single sex designs. They are less safe for the medically vulnerable, women and children.
If it’s option 2 it will be interesting to see how it changes usage - will the sexes keep themselves largely separate once they have official permission to mix. Based on my toilet research, I would predict a few groups of young males will go into the renamed women’s, specifically targeting this pond to show off laddish behaviour and intimidate young women. There may be more lone males in the renamed women’s around the changing areas (depending on the current configuration) who now have ‘permission’ to be there. In contrast, I think the renamed men’s will stay mostly men, and the mixed stay mixed though less numbers as many of the unattached men will be in the women’s.
For comparison, in some uk secondary schools, I know children have been known to try and divide the mixed sex toilets up into male and female sides such is the natural distain for them when only presented with mixed sex toilets. With mixed sex toilets there are problems with hygiene and misuse so supervision needs to be increased for health and safety. Some girls avoid going to the mixed sex toilets (because of hygiene issues and misuse including voyeurism) and in a few cases miss school when there’s not the option to avoid needing the toilet. This last bit is a worldwide problem. In fact, many aid charities such as UNICEF and PLAN build separate female toilets as they find that’s the easiest and only way for girls to get an education.
Option 1 is the easiest and only way to include all women and girls getting access to the ponds - by one of the ponds being single sex.
If you state the 2 options clearly for people to vote on, people can choose which demographic(s) to exclude. In voting, you are voting for exclusion either way.