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/

Say, for the sake of argument, that they do allow trans women in the ladies pond and trans men in the men's pond. Each of those ponds only has 1 changing room, so everyone shares.
What if you go to the mixed pond, and use the changing room there. Will the changing rooms in the mixed pond be subject to the same categories as the single sex ponds - i.e. will trans identified men be allowed in the ladies' changing rooms of the mixed ponds ?

I honestly have no idea why so many people who've never set toe in the pond and never intend to think it's their business to meddle and override what the pond users want.

You don't imagine for one second that 38,000 distinct people use the ponds do you?

If each of 38,000 people came only once a month the ponds would have 1300 visitors a day on average. You'd not be able to move.

I honestly have no idea why so many people who've never set toe in the pond and never intend to think it's their business to meddle and override what the pond users want.

Well there were quite a few women pond users who had been using the ponds for years until men started forced colonisation and appropriation of the women's resource, and they were driven out - I seem to remember a group of Jewish women in particular.

No one (those men in particular and their allies) gave a fuck. Those women's voices and that they wanted to still be able to go on using the pond was meaningless to them. No care, no consideration, no kindness, no thought for inclusion.

The only pond users who get to do any wanting are the ones with penises. Which makes it a major women's rights issue that no woman should look away from.

Like the Supreme Court justices?

There is a law. If I run a pond and the users want to keep the gays or the blacks out, then tough on us. It’s illegal unless it can pass a pretty specific test.

Us passing a vote to keep the blacks and gays out doesn’t wash either. Do you think it should?

If you want your pond to break that same law, tough also. Even if your friends the other users vote that you all give each other permission to do so.

I am perhaps, stupid. But my understanding of the two protected characteristics thing was that it was you could could have a group / service etc. specifically for people that shared 2 (or more) PCs not that you could "and" them?

So a "Roman Catholic women's centre" = fine
Or a "Pregnant Jewish lesbian club" = that's ok

But you can't have a "Roman Catholics and Women's Group" and only exclude non Catholic men because you'd have no reasonable grounds to do so given you're already inviting both men and people who aren't Catholic?

I think you are correct as do others such as sex matters

This.

There is a concept called manufactured consent where institutions conduct studies, solicit feedback and conduct community outreach in order to justify predetermined policies. This is practically a pure example of it. It's a tactic that we as a society have to become better at combatting because it destroys the integrity of institutions and weakens democracy.

The "one or more protected characteristic" theme is a) speculative (never been tested in court) and b) applies only to associations (which have membership according to certain rules.

It absolutely doesn't apply to a service open to members of the public (which, I think, includes fake associations that charge a peppercorn membership fee open to anyone to avoid the legal restrictions on services.)

Pregnant Jewish Lesbians club - fine. And always has been fine. What's new is a club for Jews, pregnant women and lesbians.

Roman Catholic women's centre: as long as it's a real association and not really a public leisure centre.

But you can't have a "Roman Catholics and Women's Group" and only exclude non Catholic men because you'd have no reasonable grounds to do so given you're already inviting both men and people who aren't Catholic?

If it's a real association then yes, apparently now you can exclude non catholic men because they aren't either of the Catholic faith or women. This is new and not tested in court and depends on the courts doing some sleight-of-hand, but the EHRC feels it's likely they would to allow people to chose with whom they associate which the ECHR requires.

Final legal comment for now.

Section 14 of the EA2010 has never been brought into force, and is inactive.

When section 14 comes into force (at some unspecfied date) it will have effect throughout the applicability of the act. It not presently being in force is why LS's recent tribunal was unable to find that she was discriminated against for being a Muslim woman - that would be combined attribute discrimination which is not at present unlawful.

The one-or-more protected characteristics argument at play in association is quite different.

I'm sure that's true, my impression was that it's a bit different with a private club or association like those examples, whereas The Ponds were open to the general public, and subject to different rules. Or am I wrong about that?

You are correct. Different rules for services open to the public (like the ponds) vs. private clubs (associations.)

For services: you cannot have single PC services - except for some very limited exceptions like single sex where the other sex doesn't need the service, or separate sex where members of one sex could reasonably object to the presence of the other.

To make this more concrete: a bakery serving women only is not legal. A club for women only, is.

You do know swimming pools in every twin and city are mixed-gender, right?

The ponds are an oddity, and residents are quite happy to let the very few trans women turning up swim where they want. Maybe respect their choice?

Hoaxer thing is quite funny, well done. As if any man ever needs to dress up to assault women.

The bigger issue is lack of access to any wild swimming across London - these are the last swimming ponds left there, and confined to a well-off area.

Working-class women and girls across the country need greater access to cheap, outdoor, safe swimming areas - as shown by all the deaths last week.

*town, apologies. Spellchecker is not my drones.

The ponds are an oddity, and residents are quite happy to let the very few trans women turning up swim where they want. Maybe respect their choice?

Anti-discrimination law is in place to prevent unlawful discrimination even when "everyone" appears to agree it's a wonderful idea. If it's not lawful, then it doesn't matter whether everyone consents to it or nobody consents to it. It's still not lawful.

That survey is laughable and not at all representative of the population of London. It was obviously brigaded by TRA activists.

Apparently of the 38,000:

38.5% of respondents identified as heterosexual / straight, 23% identified
as bisexual or pansexual, 13% identified as Queer, 11% identified as gay, 9.5%
identified as lesbian, with 4% preferring to self-describe their sexuality.

Plus as it was online, anyone from anywhere could fill it in. They didn't verify that people lived where they said they did so for all we know it could have been a bunch of Americans using VPNs.

https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/assets/Green-Spaces/Ponds-Consultation-Report.pdf

You can't have 'women and transwomen' because the equality act says transwomen are biological men.

So 'women and transwomen' equals 'biological women and biological men'

Ergo mixed sex.

exceptions like single sex ... where members of one sex could reasonably object to the presence of the other.

Lounging around a pond in the nude would constitute a situation where one sex could reasonably object to the presence of the other.

In fact, swimming in swimsuits at a normal pool is also such a situation for many women - which is why most public pools have women-only sessions quite legally.

Yes its the usual (deliberate?) misunderstanding of what inclusivity means. A place for everyone NOT everyone needs to be in the same place.

Thinking about this more, I bet they'll try to rely on that bit out of the failed GLP judicial review against EHRC that JM tried to spin as a 'win'.

From para 61 of the judgment:

In a case where the provision of separate lavatories labelled male and female was materially similar in terms of the extent of the provision, location, and so on, I consider there would, in principle, be scope for a strong argument that a rule or practice that permitted trans women to use the “female” lavatory but required other biological men to use the male lavatory would comprise different but not less favourable treatment on grounds of sex.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/good-law-project-EHRC-AC-2025-1953-judgment-13Feb26.pdf

They will argue that because there is a men's pond, it's not direct discrimination to exclude men without the PC of gender reassignment from the ladies' pond while admitting men with the PC of GR.

This ignores that the judge's comment was 'obiter' (in passing) and so does not create a legal precedent. It also says nothing about claims that could be brought by female users of the ponds for indirect discrimination and harassment.

Lots of discussion on this thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5489699-glp-v-ehrc-judgement-is-coming-tomorrow?page=4&reply=150499153

Something being lawful doesn't mean it's correct, or reflect what people want, certainly. Section 28 was lawful.

Women tend to stand together against pointless, petty bigotry. We know that stopping fully-clothes trans women piping meringues with their friends isn't feminism, or safeguarding. Nor is going on about a pond.

In Al Hijra, it was held by the Court of Appeal (think) that separate is discriminatory, even where equal provision is made for each sex. The argument went that a girl (it was about strict sex segregation in a school) was prevented from associating with the boys from whom she was segregated, a detriment to which she would not have been subject had she been a boy.

Equal discrimination against each sex is still unlawful, in other words.

I don’t think that argument works well for toilets as they aren’t places where people go to associate with each other. But it does apply very well to the Hampstead ponds: a man denied entry to the women’s pond is denied the opportunity to associate with his female friends there, a detriment which cannot be litigated only if a strict sex segregation is maintained.

@TransParentlyAnnoyed It’s up to Parliament to change the law if the law needs to be changed. It’s not open for individuals or organizations to obey only the laws they agree with.

a man denied entry to the women’s pond is denied the opportunity to associate with his female friends there

He and his female friends have the opportunity to associate at the mixed pond - and at all the other places where men and women associate!

But his being there denies all women the opportunity to swim and sunbathe in a female-only environment.

The Al Hijra faith school one was pretty strange. It hinged on the school being co-educational, even though girls and boys used different corridors, classrooms, playgrounds, etc. It basically operated as two single-sex schools on the same site - this was also normal for English schools until somewhere around WW2. My junior school still had the girls' and boys' entrances though, by then, we could use either.

Single sex schools are not illegal, so Al Hijra's split site was the confounding factor.

It doesn't at all reflect the Hampstead situation as there's already a mixed pool.

I think we may be arguing the same point.

The TRA talking point at the moment seems to be that the provision of a mixed pond cures the discrimination inherent in men+trans-identifying women to one pond and women+trans-identifying men to the other.

I don't think it does. Men who are forbidden to swim with their female friends in the women's (+ trans-identifying men) pond are still discriminated against, even if they all could go to the mixed pond to swim together. The only way for that not to be unlawful is for all men to be excluded (because that is explicitly ok in the act.)

Yes, @MyAmpleSheep, quite!

Have done a bit more gardening for Sex Matters to quiet this high-profile pettiness for good.