Hampstead Ponds update today

[WallaceinAnderland]

I'm not sure that this is in line with the law.

They need to label all 3 ponds as mixed sex.

https://news.cityoflondon.gov.uk/hampstead-heaths-bathing-ponds-to-remain-trans-inclusive-spaces-as-city-corporation-agrees-future-access-policy/

Hampstead Heath’s Bathing Ponds will continue to operate as trans inclusive spaces under a future access policy agreed by elected Members of the City of London Corporation today.

It means that biological and trans women will continue to use the Kenwood Ladies’ Pond, and biological and trans men will continue to use the Highgate Men’s Pond. The Hampstead Mixed Pond is open to everyone.

The 'two protected characteristics' has not been tested in court. This also still means that certain women practising religious belief would be excluded from all three ponds.

Does that mean they can’t label one of them as a women’s pond?

Are you saying the EHRC guidance is wrong?

I would have thought so, yes.

IANAL, but my current understanding is that if they were a club they might be able to be women + trans women, but as a service provider they haven't demonstrated that the exceptions in the equality act that allow them to exclude men or women from either pond apply.

Isn't the men's pond bigger than the women's pond?

Wouldn’t trans inclusive be male pond, female pond and third space for trans people

They’re all mixed sex then aren’t they

Isn't this them saying 'We're going to break the law and we don't care'?

Does that mean a group of normal, everyday men can use the women's pond so long as they say the magic words, ditto women in the men's?

"The decision follows an extensive public consultation, in which more than 38,000 respondents took part"

There was an excellent analysis of how 38,000 people managed to complete the consultation, breaking it down against actual user numbers and it ultimately meant the whole thing was a sham that was brigaded to get exactly the response CoL wanted.

My (limited) understanding is that they can do what they want, but if they call it a ladies/women's (or men's) pond then that label has to mean the biological definition. Same way that Nescafe can't call their normal blend decaf if it isn't. Because words mean things.

That's what it sounds like to me.

Wouldn’t the trans pond then just be mixed? So back to how it used to be?

These people are making themselves look so irrational and, frankly, petty - that goes for MPs using somewhat arcane methods to try to block not a law, but guidance about a law, so that a subset of men may continue to use the women's toilets, as well as the City of London who are prepared to stand by having 3 separate swimming areas, all of them open to men, all given misleading titles.

So much energy and time and no doubt expense devoted to such an irrational aim, at the noisy behest of such a small percentage of the population.

Yup.

This is the elephant cantering around unaddressed.

The guidance / law provides access and equality for all.

'Trans inclusive' excludes significant populations of women from anything at all.

Face it chaps. Own your own misogyny and assimilation.

So this needs to be tested by us identifying as men and using the ‘men’s’ pond. Any problem and they get sued. I’m happy to do it.

Hopefully some more brave women will call themselves men and go to the male pond again, to literally test the waters…

Isn't the 2 protected characteristics thing only relevant to associations?

How it's been in fact since men marched in and took over.

There will be a men's pond - because men kick off if women play the identity game and police remove them because men

There will be a mixed sex pond.

There will be another mixed sex pond.

I imagine a test case with the dream legal team will be popping up soon

but I think it must be time for us all to visit the Men’s Pond soon. I feel really, really manly at the moment

How exactly do you differentiate between a man who identifies as a woman and a man who says he identifies as a woman?

It's any man, isn't it? Any time. As he wishes. How he presents is irelevant. All he has to do is walk in, and he's self identified and no one can challenge him.

So how can you in any realistic way claim to be excluding men?

It was clear that the Man Friday action was a protest so I think they could argue that they were not seriously identifying as men.

But if there were just an uptick in women using the pond would they be able to complain?

I'm not talking about the practicalities - just the concept of having a facility that is for women + trans women. I thought Akua Reindorf had said this was potentially legal for associations because of freedom of association and no need to pass a legitimate purpose test.

However, I thought the rules were different for services where there must be a legitimate purpose to allow sex discrimination.

I do agree that in practice nobody is excluded.

Interesting... yes, how will they know which men are trans-identified and which aren't? What about hoaxer-gender? Will they rely on the style of the cozzies?