The Kenwood Ladies’ Pond on Hampstead Heath has long held a reputation among Londoners for being a safe haven for women, including those who are transgender. Since 1925, women have been swimming, chatting and relaxing on its bank all through the seasons. Yet, it has once again become a contested site of the UK’s debate around the rights of trans people.
This week, it was announced that the charity Sex Matters is planning a £50,000 claim against the City of London Corporation in a bid to ban trans women from the Ladies’ Pond, arguing that it’s a breach of the law following the Supreme Court ruling brought by For Women Scotland in April, which states that trans women are not legally women under the Equality Act. Their pledge, which forms part of the group’s “stand up for single-sex services” campaign, is calling to “keep men out of the Ladies’ Pond”.
The backlash among regular swimmers has been ardent. “It’s awful that [Sex Matters] are souring what used to be one of the most pleasant places in London,” says Alex*, 36, who has been swimming at the Ladies’ Pond for many years. “It used to be an escape from the hostility of the outside world but now [the group] seems intent on making it just as cruel and judgemental as everywhere else.”
The feeling is just as mutual elsewhere, with locals saying they’ve never once felt unsafe or threatened by the presence of trans swimmers, who only ever make up a very small minority of visitors. “This is a special natural place that should be welcoming, and I don’t see why trans women should be excluded,” adds Maya*, 27. “The Ladies’ Pond is one of the few places that’s made me feel grateful to be a woman, and I think that should apply to all women. I always feel inspired seeing women of all different ages, body shapes, races, and nationalities.”
For many women, the inherently inclusive spirit has been physically and emotionally healing. “As someone who’s struggled with an eating disorder in the past, the pond’s calm and welcoming environment really helped me,” says Izy*, 28, who has been visiting regularly for six years. “Through winters and summers, the ponds helped me to decompress and come to terms with my body. To now hear that they might be considering banning trans women is utterly heartbreaking to me. Supreme Court ruling or not, the ponds should be a welcoming and homely space for all women seeking refuge from daily life.”
Others simply don’t understand the degree of outrage over what will only ever be a small proportion of swimmers – according to the 2021 census, 0.1 per cent of the population in England and Wales identified as a trans woman. “It’s literally a hole of dirty water,” says Charlie*, 30, who identifies as non-binary and regularly swims at the Ladies’ Pond. “Is your life so empty that you’re worried about who else is swimming in there instead of thinking about other issues facing open water swimming, like regulating water safety? There are way worse things you need to worry about than whether or not you’re swimming next to a trans woman. This feels like little more than an attempt at red-taping trans people out of public life. It’s just one pond in London.”
Calls to ban trans women from the Ladies’ Pond have been ongoing for years. In 2018, campaigners staged a protest at the Hampstead Heath men’s pond (there is also a mixed pond), donning fake moustaches and beards in a bid to draw attention to the refusal by the Ladies’ Pond to ban trans women. But the pressure has mounted since the Supreme Court ruling, with a similar protest taking place in May involving 30 women storming the men’s pond while shouting “no goolies in our poolies” while claiming to identify as male.
Among all this, the Ladies’ Pond hasn’t budged, having explicitly made the move to allow trans women since 2019 despite ongoing pressures to change tact. In 2024, the Kenwood Ladies’ Pond Association (KLPA) rejected a motion among its 200 members proposing that “only those born female in sex can use the pond”. It has since stated its intention to erect signs around the pond saying that trans women are welcome to swim, as well as use the changing rooms and showers.
This is what Sex Matters is fighting to prevent. “The Ladies’ Pond at Hampstead Heath is a single-sex service by definition, and the recent Supreme Court judgment confirmed that single-sex services need to be provided on the basis of biological sex rather than how people identify,” says Maya Forstater, CEO of Sex Matters. “Women who choose to swim at the ladies’ pond rather than the mixed pond are choosing a female-only environment for a variety of personal reasons, including privacy and dignity. Allowing men with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment to enter means that it is no longer a female-only environment.”
In response to Sex Matters’ proposed legal action, the City of London Corporation has said it’s now reviewing its access policies. “In doing so, we must consider the impact of current and potential future arrangements on all visitors, while ensuring we meet our legal duties and provide appropriate access,” a statement reads. “This summer we will engage with our service users and other stakeholders to ensure we understand their needs and can take properly informed decisions. In considering the way forward, we have taken, and will continue to take, specialist legal advice. The current arrangements remain in place during the review. Our priority is to provide a safe and respectful environment for everyone.”
It’s currently not clear whether the corporation will be forced to change its stance. “The Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland clarified that the definition of ‘woman’ under the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex in the context of provisions that allow for single-sex services or spaces,” says Jodie Hill, managing partner at Thrive Law. But this doesn’t ban trans women from single-sex spaces per se; it merely clarifies when exclusion is legally justified. “The Equality Act is clear that trans people can only be excluded from single-sex spaces in limited and proportionate circumstances where there is a legitimate aim, such as for privacy, safety, or safeguarding reasons,” adds Hill. In other words, it can’t suddenly be a safeguarding issue when it hasn’t been before, and trans women were swimming at the Ladies’ Pond long before 2019.
“Unless that policy is challenged and proven to breach the Equality Act under the clarified definition, it can remain in place,” says Hill. “There are lifeguards and stewards at the pond to ensure the comfort and safety of all users, which would make it even harder to bring an argument that the safety of cis-women is at risk by allowing trans women to use the pond. Campaigners seeking to exclude trans women would therefore need to demonstrate that such exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”
On its website, Sex Matters claims it has heard “appalling stories” from women about the presence of trans women at the Ladies’ Pond, which is incredibly popular in the summer, occasionally garnering up to 600 swimmers per day. A document of anecdotes the group has gathered and sent to The Independent includes six testimonies from regular visitors citing discomfort at the presence of trans women. None mention the need for police action or intervention, though Sex Matters claims it has heard of instances where women have reported experiences to the police.
A long-time swimmer at the Ladies’ Pond of over 40 years said in the testimonials that she has tended to “self-exclude over the last four or so years due to the unpleasantness over trans women being admitted”. Trans women have been legally allowed to use the Ladies’ Pond for 15 years due to the Equality Act 2010 and were formally invited by KLPA in 2018.
Another woman said, “I used to use the ponds for many years, but I do not go any longer as I have two young daughters and I cannot in all faith take my children there. I cannot be confident of our safety or privacy.”
Even if a ban were imposed, legal experts fear it would only create more problems than it solves. “Asking for evidence and challenging people, or making assumptions on sex based on looks or other attributes, could easily infringe the rights of trans individuals, or those who are not trans but may be perceived to be trans,” adds Elouisa Crichton, partner at Dentons law firm. “If you start barring people from accessing the pool because you think they are trans or they look male, then that could quickly become problematic, as you get into the issue of people ‘passing’ as female and women who may look more masculine being challenged despite not being male, which could amount to harassment and privacy issues.”
When asked by The Independent about how Sex Matters suggests a ban be enforced, Forstater said: “Staff should not have to judge whether a particular man is trans, non-binary, gender-fluid or simply a cross-dresser. If the rule is clear that no men are allowed in, then all men should respect this, however they like to dress and whatever pronouns they prefer. Staff should treat everyone politely. If a man feels upset that he has not been allowed into the Ladies’ Pond and its facilities for women, this is not harassment – it is simply the application of a lawful rule.”
For regulars like Charlie, the debate around allowing trans women at the Ladies’ Pond speaks to wider concerns about how LGBT+ people are being treated in London more generally. “This might feel like a small battle, but if [the Ladies’ Pond] becomes yet another space where trans people can’t fully participate, then it becomes about regulating them out of public life,” they explain. “Not only is that awful for trans people. It’s awful for cisgender people, too, because trans people make our communities brighter, more diverse, and interesting. Any time we lose a public space that trans people can’t be included in is a tragedy for everyone.”
*Names have been changed
