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/

Could he just say he ‘is’ a woman, not that he‘identifies’ as one?

You'd have to ask someone else I can't be bothered to keep up with what terms people are using at any given time.

You can't have a pool for white people and a pool for black people and say 'it's fine because they are 'equal' facilities'.

You also can’t say that it’s fine to have a pool for white people & a pool for black people because that’s what the users voted for.

Quite

Unfortunately, according to this report (which I do not believe) 86% of the 38,000 (an incredibly high number, given that there are only 6,000 users of the ponds) voted in favour of the current policy. I simply find it totally unrealistic, that around 32,000 people found it OK for men to be present in a women only pond.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqjpjvvyp91o

I think race discrimination is always illegal so it's not comparable.

The difference here is that they would be segregating by sex but without complying with the exceptions in the Equality Act.

The regular users don't own the ponds anyway. They are open to the general public including overseas visitors, UK residents who don't live in N London and locals who might only use them a couple of times a year.

It would be indirect discrimination. This is where the same rules apply to everyone but have a disproportionate impact on people with a particular protected characteristic.

It's worth reading Jo Phoenix's expert witness statement for the Darlington nurses:

https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Expert-witness-report-by-Prof-Jo-Phoenix.pdf

And the judge's comments in accepting her testimony as evidence in support of indirect discrimination:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Bethany-Hutchison-Others-v-County-Durham-and-Darlington-NHS-Foundation-Trust-2501192-24-Others-Reserved-judgment.pdf

(from para 257)

ETA - indirect discrimination against women.

There is no legal requirement to provide single-sex swimming but it is lawful because it's a proportionate way of meeting this legitimate aim (it doesn't have to be a 'need' as such). As soon as you let some men in it fails to meet the aim and therefore cannot rely on the single sex exception.
It's like arguing that it's OK to let some men into a female only swim session at the local leisure centre because there are separate changing rooms. It removes the justification for the single sex sessions in the first place.

But if the excluded men are suffering no detriment, @PencilsInSpace ,and if they are facing the exact same exclusions as women (ie no entry to opposite sex pond unless trans-ID'd), then the providers would have no need to rely on the single-sex exemption because there would have been no discrimination or detriment on the basis of sex.

All they'd need to establish is that there were three broadly equally resourced ponds, and that men and women faced exactly the same access rules: Entry only permitted to two out of three ponds unless you have a trans ID.

I mean, I really want the women's pond to be women only, but I can see the argument that the trans-inclusive arrangement is legal. If that is what the users genuinely want (and perhaps there are grounds for legal review of the adequacy of the consultation and decision process, IDK), then in justice I can't see why the law should prevent it (so long as there are changing facilities that permit safety and privacy, and a baseline level of security arrangements to prevent sexual assault).

Some questions are correctly a matter for people, rather than the law, to address. If there is no consensus in society on the trans issue, we should expect a multiplicity of trans-inclusive and trans-exclusive provisions and associations. The Equality Act sets the parameters in which these can occur. It doesn't delegitimise all trans-inclusive provision by fiat.

You know instead of posting all this nonsense you could go and do something productive with your lives.

We get one brief moment of existence and you're here doing this.

Please, I'm begging you, there's so much more you could be doing.

It doesn't delegitimise all trans-inclusive provision by fiat.
I don't disagree with your post overall. But it's worth noting again that the set-up with a Ladies' Pond, a Men's Pond and a Mixed Pond IS trans-inclusive. Just not in the way that some people seem to want.

You're here, wasting your time by replying. Go and do something productive, maybe?

In essence, it was cockblocking.

So much more I could do for women's rights and the equality of the kind of women you'd like me to ignore and let be excluded, harassed and raped quietly to benefit a small group of men?

You're right. There's always more I can be doing, but posting here is a big part of it. Posts like yours remind me why it's so very important, so thanks for that.

Agreed, but MF uses the sorry histories of segregation by race (as well as by sex) to make the point in a visceral way.
EA 26(1) allows separate services for sexes (if PMoALA etc) and 26(2) allows separate and different services. So 26(1) must be 'separate and equal'. So you need a carve out even if you are offering equal services. And a carve out means sex must be bio sex

Some questions are correctly a matter for people, rather than the law, to address.

If they are members of an association yes.

if they are providing a service, no.

I don't think the question here is about trans inclusion. I think it is about the circumstances when sex discrimination is legal and illegal.

Yes I'm sure posting on the internet will help loads. Good job!

You obviously feel threatened by the posting on the internet or you wouldn't be trying to shut down people doing it here

Why are you 'begging' us, @Kasi0pia ? Is that phrasing intended to smuggle in the idea that you are being victimised by the discussion? I think women feel as distressed by this whole issue as trans-identified men do. I don't think either side has the right to claim that the discussion itself is too distressing to happen.

lol I'm sure you've been over to trans Reddit and posted this too right??

i mean of course you haven't, it's only women that get scolded whereas men devoting tine to destroying women's things is totes fine

Thank you!

Not at all, if this is really how you want to spend your short time on Earth you go ahead.

Well it helped the women who make FWS meet each other and form a group that went on to take a case to the Supreme Court to confirm sex in the equality act 2010 means biological sex

ditto all the posting on the internet links to crowdfunders for the Darlington nurses, maya forstater and jo phoenix

so yeah I'd say it helps

It's because it saddens me to see so many people spending their day endlessly posting about trans people. Is this really what you want to do? It's so sad.

We're posting about women's rights