Sex Matters - Hampstead Heath Ponds -

[SexRealismBeliefs]

Sex Matters, a charity that campaigns for single-sex rights, will argue that the City of London Corporation is breaching equality law by allowing trans women to use Kenwood Ladies’ Pond on Hampstead Heath.

Hearing this Wednesday.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/cceca8ca-4167-4b04-875a-40ddacfea782?shareToken=e9fe25a546d20835f1a5a66564cbf27b

It's an all too perfect example of how fucked up everything is. And, to use a very old-fashioned phrase, they still have 'the Establishment' behind them.

Yes Kenwood is on Hampstead Heath so this is the controversial “ladies pond” subject to legal challenge because it is in reality mixed sex by admitting TIMs.

Is your DC male or female?! It makes a big difference on how to interpret your post!

if they are female they need to be careful there and assume/behave as if males are around.

If they are male tell them to stay out of the ladies and use one of the two other ponds (male or mixed)

Any membership charity may change its objects by the process laid out in its governing document. However, any changes to the objects also have to be approved by the Charity Commission to ensure that it is not substantially changing them in a way that stops it being charitable or illegal.

The Hampstead Ponds come under the Hampstead Heath charity (No 803392), run by the Corporation of London.

Its objects as stated on the Charity Commission website are as follows:
THE PRESERVATION OF HAMPSTEAD HEATH IN PERPETUITY BY THE CORPORATION OF LONDON AS THE TRUSTEES OF HAMPSTEAD HEATH, AS AN OPEN SPACE FOR THE RECREATION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PUBLIC.

These are very broad objects and changing them wouldn’t be easy because they probably haven’t changed in decades. Changing them wouldn’t affect the Ponds.

But.

The objects do state the Heath (and therefore the Ponds) must be run FOR THE RECREATION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PUBLIC.

As it is a service for the public, it comes smack bang under the Equality Act 2010. Either they make all three ponds mixed-sex, or they must provide single sex provision for biological women if they have single sex provision for biological men.

Fortunately the existence of the Mixed Sex Pond means that men and women who identify as trans can use that without upsetting men or women.

Fortunately the existence of the Mixed Sex Pond means that men and women who identify as trans can use that without upsetting men or women.

Sorry, it's just too easy to read that as Mixed "Sex Pond"!

So it isn't actually stated that the provision of ponds for swimming should be based on same sex ponds.

I suppose, given the period of time when this first started it was just normal to have single sex facilities, and it wouldn't have been spelt out.

Would the concept of custom and practice apply?

That's difficult because current custom and practice is that the Women's Pond is mixed sex in reality.

But custom and practice cannot take precedence over the law.

That's difficult because current custom and practice is that the Women's Pond is mixed sex in reality.

Im not sure that’s true because there were never any notices put up saying clearly that males were allowed in. So women won’t have known what was custom and practice. And what worked years ago may no longer work as the numbers of users change.

The COL have had mixed sex by stealth - so although it may be their custom and practice it’s not recognisable to the average person that this is what they’ve been doing. The publicity has come as a result of complaints and not from transparency by the operators.

It’s similar to Planning Permission - if you don’t build to the plans anyone can complain about what you have done within 7 years and you may have an enforcement notice put in place to make you revert to what was agreed. The COL are attempting to fight the complaints against them but ultimately if they call it a woman’s pond then it has to be for women.

So they can’t carry on as they are. Something will have to change. The obvious way would be to keep single sex ponds for male and female plus mixed sex. As they should have now - the change would be to enforce single sex.

Alternatively if they want to change to mixed sex for all 3 ponds then they’ll need to do a proper consultation with proper publicity. Losing both male and female ponds. Good luck with that….

Id expect it will be impossible for them to justify turning the women’s pond mixed and keeping the men’s pond unchanged. But they do seem mad enough that they might try

Its a fabulous case study for single sex spaces as it’s an iconic venue which already has facilities for being inclusive even if the operators are tying their hardest to discriminate against women

It'll be very clear religious discrimination if all are mixed-sex I'd have thought. Of course it might take someone pursuing that point through the courts.

I entirely disagree. You've put it perfectly. They may claim it was their custom and practice, but as I said earlier, that doesn't trump the law.

There has already been a case in the woman who won recently. NHS case changing rooms. She's a Muslim so it was also religious discrimination.

That was in the context of a statutory requirement for single-sex facilities.

There's no law that says swimming pools can't be mixed sex if the operator wants them to be, and I don't think a court is going to accept that they have to, to avoid discrimination against Muslim women.

It's also relevant that indirect discrimination claims (as this would be) cannot be founded on the basis of combined characteristics. So indirect discrimination on the basis of being a woman can be claimed, or for being Muslim. But not for something that affects only people of Muslim faith who are also women. (That clause of the EA2010 has never come into effect.)

But what is the law here? The quote up thread was about for the benefit of the public or something.

No specifics as to how that would be done.

But in line with existing "standards" of the time meant that both a men's and a women's pond were created and a mixed sex one.

So in terms of being of benefit to the community the matched public standards.

The reality is, public standards have not changed.

A small but aggressive group of people have tried to unseat that norm.

How is it in the public interest to let an unrepresentative group upend the standard practice that has been for the benefit of the users.

I meant to say I entirely agree. And I'm really sorry that I didn't spot the typo.

The charity's objects say that it's for the benefit of the public. Once a charity is set up for public benefit it will find it very difficult to become a private company or a charity for the benefit of specific beneficiaries.

At the end of the day, I have to ask why is the Corporation of London having this fight? It would be much easier to do as many others have done and blame it on the law but comply "with regret'.

There has to be a vested interest involved to ignore the advice from their very expensive fancy lawyers.

I meant to say I entirely agree. And I'm really sorry that I didn't spot the typo.

Yeah, I saw that, and I think it was pretty obvious that it was just a typo, and your meaning was clear.