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/

I would 100% visit the ponds if that was the name of the women's one lol

This reminds me of when trans reddit said terfs should be segregated and forced to use a separate terf toilet hyuck hyuck hyuck

And loads of us on here said "yes please!!"

What you do not find are legitimate groupings of one or another characteristic.

A big exception to this - LGBT organisations, which are open to (a) people attracted to their own sex, and (b) transgender people (both separate sorts of protected characteristic under the Equality Act). Whilst some people may be of an "LGB without the T" disposition, I'm not sure many would actually want LGBT organisations to be made illegal on these grounds. What does the law actually say on this case, or is it unclear?

I suspect that the popularity of segregated swimming is a factor.

Not just for the women's pond, I expect that given societal attitudes towards gay men until recently, for the men's pond, for many years it was one of the few places gay men could go and feel safe.

The paper posted above is an interesting read.

The point it appears to be missing is the name of the male and female ponds, which per the SC ruling give a biological meaning to sex the ponds are allocated to.

They also use S158 as a potential fall back position which fails because that only applies to further disadvantage being addressed within a particular protected characteristic, it is not available where there are two or more characteristics involved.

They also suggest that there is no identifiable incidents that have actually occurred, and seem to think that therefore there is no risk of harm. Ignoring perceived or potential risks.

Whilst at the same time proposing to spend a significant amount of money to provide more privacy, and safety.

They are also suggesting that the proposed arrangements, option 2, would fall within “a proportionate means to a legitimate aim”. Which is an incorrect analysis of that particular exception, because it relates to a single protected characteristic grouping.

In effect they have advised the committee to keep the status quo, because the legal advice says they will get challenged either way,

They need to get better legal advice.

https://x.com/akuareindorf/status/2057542829434417274

Thread from Akua Reindorf on this topic.

In summary, it's not settled law, but freedom of association rights make it likely that the EA contravened Article 11 - freedom of association - when it made that stipulation.

(NB: this relates to associations only. Services which have stricter rules)

As far as I can see, in the paper they talk about lived gender, which isn't a Protected Characteristic.

They are now taking about sex (PC) + gender (not PC). Have they changed their minds about the rationale, or are they just confused?

They define lived gender earlier in the submission as the gender reassignment process.

Isn't that rather, er, circular?

No they're not confused, they just really really really disagree with the law so they're trying to justify ignoring it

because obviously ignoring law you really really really don't agree with is exactly how society should be organised

Just not enough money to provide lifeguards for all three ponds year round, apparently. Take-up is low at both the Men's and the Ladies' during the colder months, but there's a hard core who power through the winter. DP is one of them and sometimes he's the only one there.

I agree it would make sense to keep the Mixed pond open all year, especially in the context of this debate .... but I can also see that it might not make sense economically.

For some reason I can't access the report any more, but how would they check? Are they excluding trans people who can't prove a name change?

I'm wondering why they don't only keep the mixed pond open in the winter and close the other two.

Perhaps that's because they realise it is important to women to have a single-sex space that they can swim in all year round. Oh, wait…

No they are not suggesting checking a persons gender upon entry, and are relying on service users to follow the rather nebulous rule.

I thought they were rolling in money? Aren’t they spending loads of money on their solution of increasing privacy in the changing rooms and toilets? Those universal toilet rooms much more expensive to install and maintain as they require individual basins, dryers and alarms etc.

Speaking of privacy and alarms, this is what schools do when going ‘gender-neutral’….the prompts are ‘stop it’ and ‘help me’. Perhaps they can buy these too?

Yes good question. I suppose there would be an outcry from the regulars.

The other two are arguably nicer than the Mixed - the Men's is bigger, deeper and has more of a jetty, plus (I believe) a taller diving board. The Ladies' is much more secluded (Mixed and Mens are overlooked), and has two really nice meadows for drying off and lounging around in. I don't much like swimming in the Mixed because there's so little space to lie on your towel afterwards.

In that sense, it's not really an equal provision - but not through any act of deliberate discrimination, just a consequence of geography.

But the Man Friday men were chucked out for their insincere gender identity? I guess because the real men complained, which counts as at least10x more complaint-worthy than if a woman were to complain about that lady in the lady's pond changing rooms with her testicles on display.

No one has the slightest problem with someone creating a group for anything they like

Yes they do - I do. Big honking great elephant sized problems.

Resources and spaces:

There is an ambiguity here. Are you talking about clubs and associations, or services?

Swimming pools, survivor groups, health groups: these are all services, not associations. I think its entirely wrong in principle to allow trans-inclusive versions of all of these.

I'm not bothered about names or advertising at all. I'm bothered about how a service to the public is operated, and specifically who is excluded from it. The lawfulness or otherwise of excluding someone who is not in the in-group isn't determined by a naming convention or any clarity in rules.

I agree with you that services - and anything else, health groups the lot - that are created and named for a specific protected characteristic absolutely must be limited to the characteristic it is named for

I'm glad you say you agree with me, but you're really agreeing with something I haven't said and don't believe. I don't care whether a group is created and named for "women-only" or "women+trans-women", or "Giggle for Girls" or anything else. If it is operated to be a service open to the public that restricts itself to women and "trans-women" only and other men are excluded, that's unlawful and wrong. Full stop.

We can agree to disagree on that; but that's my position.

If it is operated to be a service open to the public that restricts itself to women and "trans-women" only and other men are excluded, that's unlawful and wrong. Full stop.

Does this mean you think Swift J was wrong to say that, whilst such arrangements may constitute illegal direct sex-discrimination against men, whether or not they actually do will depend on the facts of the case (because it depends on whether they are treated less favourably overall thereby)?

I disagree that this comment was obiter. He was asked to JR the Interim Update. As part of that, he drew the above conclusion, but did not think it was unreasonable for the Update to retain the reference to direct discrimination against men, because this is a liability risk that providers need to be warned about: they must do a less favourable treatment analysis because, by admitting transwomen, they have lost the protection from liability for sex-discrimination that Schedule 3 would otherwise have conferred.

What do you think will happen to this aspect of the case on appeal?

Firstly the JR presided by Swift was strictly about interpreting the meaning of sex for the purposes of the 1992 workplace regulations. So is a narrow judgement in that respect.

Secondly his comments were obiter.

Thirdly the judicial review is in the high court and therefore susceptible to reversal of any judgement via the Supreme Court.

So at this juncture the Supreme Court is where the answer lies.